…although I’d have to agree that the last sentence in this bit from your new book, “Godless”, could’ve been written more carefully (writing about the anti-war 9/11 widows and their “absolute moral authority”):
‘These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process.’
[…]
‘These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.’
OK, so what Ann is saying here — if she’ll pardon me for interpreting her words but that’s what a reader is supposed to do, no? — is that she’s bloody sick and tired of listening to this select group of widows speaking out as if their loss made them instant experts on foreign policy and national defense, experts so unassailable in their opinion that we must, perforce, give their every demand and claim about the conduct of the war serious consideration. Did I get that approximately right?
I think so.
Unless my reading comprehension skills have suddenly evaporated and I’m completely wrong with this interpretation, she also happens to be exactly right.
Of course, in an uncharacteristic (for me) display of fairness, I have to say that I don’t necessarily blame the widows for this. They’re just tools willingly employed by the Loony Left and their accomplices in the MSM exactly because their victim status is supposed to make us all abstain from any criticism, lest we be branded Heartless Evil Right Wing Death Beasts™.
Yes. I’m right. You know I am. Oh, and I am a Heartless Evil Right Wing Death Beast™, so if anybody’s reading this while firing up their keyboard, eager to throw that “slur” in my general direction, you can save yourselves the trouble.
Flattery will get you absolutely nowhere with me.
Yes, yes. The nasty bit. I’m getting to it. I’m just making sure that we’re not losing sight of the forest because of one particularly appalling tree.
That last sentence, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much”, was, to put it mildly, unfortunately worded. That’s how I’d put it if I were somebody other than who I am, so here’s the real Misha: What the everloving fuck were you thinking, Ann? Yes, I know what you were trying to say and I agree with it completely, and you should know, if you’ve ever wasted time on reading my rants, that I’m not exactly a Puritan where the creative use of outrageous language is concerned, but… Dammit! Couldn’t you have said something like “I’ve never seen people getting so much media mileage out of their husbands’ death?”
Yeah. Everybody’s a critic, and G-d knows that I’ve spoken out my ass more than just a handful of times in the past, so I’m definitely not going for the high moral ground here. I lost my membership of that club a long time ago. No, that’s not true. I burned my membership card. After I’d stuffed it into the chairman’s pocket. And I laughed all the way home.
All I’m saying is that your excellent point about the nonsensical concept of “absolute moral authority” as well as the MSM’s shameless pimping of those poor grief-stricken women will now get lost in a torrent of “HOW COULD SHE???” based on that one itty-bitty sentence, not to mention the sound of the Righteous Right tripping over their prayer beads and flagellating themselves bloody trying to outdo each other in righteous, unbiased indignation, which is always a pathetic display, and that bothers me a bit.
It bothers me because you’re an excellent writer and you make some bloody marvelous points in a humorous, biting and razor sharp fashion that makes you as entertaining to read as you are informative, unlike the mindnumbingly droll droneheads who feel they have to consult with “The PC Guide to Writing” for every sentence they commit to paper.
Oh well… So you slipped. Big hairy deal. I’ve done it too.
Not that it makes the offending sentence any less nasty, and truly and utterly nasty it is, toe-curlingly so, but it also doesn’t mean that I’m going to throw the baby out with the bath water and refuse to read your books ever again. I’d be left with nothing but Hugh Hewitt to read, and I’d much rather give up books altogether.
Just… Try to be a bit more careful, will you? For me?
Thanks.
UPDATE: Ann shoots back. Looks like she’s been cribbing my notes 
Seriously though, I’m glad that I interpreted her correctly. Glad and not at all surprised. I’m always right, you know.
UPDATE the Second: Before anybody misunderstands me, I’d like to shove a stick through the heart of the misconception that I think that the four Witches of New Brunswick are pious, saintly women who deserve our homage and respect. They don’t. I remember only too well the hysterical accusations that they were spewing forth like an out of control fire hydrant, and they were in no shape, form or fashion any less outrageous than the one sentence of Ann’s that is the subject of all of this furor.
What they deserve is our sympathy and condolences for their loss, as does any victim of 9/11 or any other horror. I can only imagine, and I hope and pray that it’ll stay that way for the rest of my life. They have my sincere condolences and sympathy, which is why I find the suggestion that they enjoyed the fact that their husbands died over the top. It looks very much like they enjoyed the attention that they got as a result, however. Attention given to them by the MSM and other liberals, attention that they only gave to them because they happened to have an opinion that fit the agenda of BDS sufferers everywhere.
They have my sympathy for their loss, and I wouldn’t piss on them if their hair was on fire.
The two are not mutually exclusive, contrary to what the “absolute moral authority” peddlers would have you believe.
Entries (RSS)
I for one think the lovely Ms. Coulter pulled her punches on the witches of East Brunswick…
Did anyone but me watch those hearing when those women used their testimony for more than a bit of Bush bashing?
Right now Bill O’Reilly is whining like raped ape over this line by Ms. Coulter…
Consider the following from Expose the Left: Godless: Coulter on Hannity & Colmes (VIDEO)
June 7th, 2006 at 10:06 pm“I watched my husband murdered live on TV. . . . At any point in time the casualties could have been lessened, and it seems to me there wasn’t even an attempt made.”
–Monica Gabrielle
“Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush’s watch.”
– Kristin Breitweiser
People who demean the President, fire and rescue crews, civilian and military rescue volunteers for political (or personal) gain are deserving of at the very least, a strongly worded, forceful opinion. Ann got it exactly right.
Dan F at M. Malkins site got it right, too.
June 7th, 2006 at 10:08 pmI did.
I still think that suggesting that they’re somehow enjoying the fact that their husbands are dead is over the top, though.
Enjoying the attention that they got as a result, on the other hand…
June 7th, 2006 at 10:09 pmI dunno. Coulter doesn’t really pull any punches when it comes to dipshittery like the 9/11 widows pulled. If it seems over the top, it’s only because that’s her style, much like the “we should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” quote moonbats get all apoplectic over.
I would gather almost everyone forgot about the whole thing. They probably don’t even remember the quotes made by the widows that Rich provided. So the media is probably omitting that fact…conveniently, of course. They can’t make people look like Nazis unless they bend things to go their way.
And Bill O’Reilly can suck my ass.
Did anyone notice Ann Coulter’s site (and her discussion board) has been down?
June 7th, 2006 at 10:19 pmI love the outrage that seeps to the fore when a conservative calls it like they see it without regard for political correctness or the fewwwings of someone who was thrust onto the public stage through no fault of their own, but stubbornly remained to give us their two cents worth, borne not of knowledge, but pain. I feel sorry for their loss, and few would suggest that any of these women would choose the money in lieu of their husbands, but I know that I have certainly felt that they, and others in similar situtations (Cindy Shehan anyone?) have mistaken the public’s initial attention for respect and aknowledgement of their expertise in any matter to which they willingly pontificate into any open microphone. It wears thin after a while, and robs them of the dignity of their grief when they linger in the spotlight by tacking messages on their orginal reason for being there. Ann said it crudely. Tact could be a component without surrendering a thing to political correctness, but I do believe it needed to be said, and should be said until the day when, as a society, we decide that the requirement for a continuing soapbox should be more than grief and tragedy.
June 7th, 2006 at 10:25 pmMs. Coulter’s home page is up & running: HEY YOU, BROWSING ‘GODLESS’ — BUY THE BOOK OR GET OUT!
The chat site however is another situation totally: phpBB : Critical Error
Error creating new session
June 7th, 2006 at 10:30 pmShe was dead on accurate in my drainage ditch shallow opinion.
June 7th, 2006 at 10:35 pmHer main Web site now loads for me, but it’s extremely slow.
June 7th, 2006 at 10:35 pmSorry, Sire, but having read Ann Coulter’s latest book…I recall thinking exactly the same thing about the “Jersey Girls” when they appeared on the scene. Including the “enjoying their husbands’ deaths” part. They seemed to be having too damned much fun to be taken seriously as grieving widows, especially as time went on.
As I recall (and Coulter confirms my memory) the first appearance of the Jersey Girls was when they demanded more money from the federal government for their losses: apparently $1.6 million dollars per 9/11 family wasn’t enough. That struck me at the time as unbelievably greedy and exploitative, as if the Jersey Girls were milking the generosity and sympathy of an entire nation for personal profit. Especially since the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing (by comparison) weren’t offered so much as a damned dime in compensation for their suffering.
Then there was the enthusiastic and gleeful way in which the Jersey Girls threw themselves into left-wing politics, from dabbling in loony 9/11 conspiracy theories to exploiting the 9/11 Commission for both political advantage and personal fame. All of which Ann recounts in her book. By the time of the 9/11 Commmission hearings, the Jersey Girls seemed to me (and Ann Coulter, obviously) to be enjoying their celebrity for its own sake, and using their personal tragedy as an excuse.
(In all fairness, I had the same reaction when watching the antics of Ed Smart, father of famous recent kidnap victim Elizabeth Smart; as time went on, Ed Smart became such a camera hog he made Chuck Schumer look shy and retiring. When his daughter was finally tracked down and rescued from her abductors, the elder Smart had to be practically dragged bodily away from the cameras…and he’d already inked a movie-of-the-week deal even before his daughter turned up alive, as I remember.)
Totally lost in the artificial furor over the tone of Coulter’s polemics is her central point: liberals deny that anybody has a right to disagree with them, and will do anything to silence their critics, even to the point of hiding behind someone else’s grief. Remember how Rosie O’Donnell tore into Tom Selleck over Selleck’s “insensitive” support of gun rights in the aftermath of Columbine, for example? The liberal grief celebrities are simply a new wrinkle on an old and sordid tactic; living “victims” with, as Maureen Dowd once said of Cindy Sheehan, “absolute moral authority” in the defense of the liberal viewpoint.
And if you dare to disagree with them in any way, you’re going to be labeled “insensitive,” “hateful,” “mean,” and a host of other epithets. Not even the Jersey Girls’ fellow 9/11 widows have any right to disagree with them, as far as the liberals and the media are concerned; neither do pro-war mothers of slain Americans have any right to disagree with Cindy Sheehan. (Who was too busy posing on her son’s unmarked grave for a Vanity Fair cover photo - with a big smile on her face - to bother putting a headstone on it.)
Since they’re just going to call you names anyway, why bother to be polite about it? That’s Ann Coulter’s view, anyway…and I’m not too worried about her remarks, either.
If you think that makes me heartless, well so be it. I feel sorry about the losses suffered by both the Jersey Girls, and Cindy Sheehan, and the rest of the liberal grief celebrities…but I’m still going to call them on making a spectacle of themselves for the sake of political advantage or personal fame.
Excuse the long post…but as usual, the liberals - and now some conservatives - are once again arguing that telling the truth about liberals is itself a dirty trick. And I’m sick of it.
June 7th, 2006 at 10:40 pmHmmm… I just updated the post to address some possible misunderstandings regarding my opinion of the Jersey Girls (I like Witches of New Brunswick better, actually) and then I read your post, Wes, saying pretty much the exact same thing while I was writing the update.
GMTA
I still, regardless of my personal and heartfelt disgust at the WoNB’s shameless antics, find suggesting that they enjoyed the deaths of their husbands is a bit much to stomach which, by the way, is the only issue I have with what Ann said.
That they enjoyed the circus that followed and were flopping around in the spotlight like walrusses on a warm rock, on the other hand, is not even a matter for debate. They did.
June 7th, 2006 at 10:55 pmAnd that’s EXACTLY why they were doing it. Money. Plain and simple. They saw the Cash Cow and grabbed the biggest bucket they could find to milk it. Sympathy. They knew this country would be full of it and willing to give them as much as they could grab. Yes I am sorry for their losses, BUT
June 7th, 2006 at 10:56 pmI do NOT believe that their loss is any more worthy of sympathy than the wife of a man that was killed by a drunk driver, or was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was accidentally shot, or died of a heart attack or cancer. It’s the death of a loved one no matter how they died, and to think that they deserve more sympathy and understanding than the woman who lost her husband to cancer is stupid, blind, and naive. When they stepped into the media spotlight to bash the President, and run this country into the ground during those ass sucking 9/11 Commission hearings….they not only lost what sympathy was there for them…but as far as I’m concerned they deserve what disdain they recieve from that point on. When you attempt to profit from the death of a loved one….you are dancing on their graves.
Yes, Ann’s (particular) choice of the word, “enjoy,” may have been a bit over the top. Her point is spot-on, however, as illustrated above, particularly by LC Wes. The unfortunate thing is that it may get lost in the controversy.
Let’s face it, the libs despise her, and they pounce on anything to discredit her. Hence, Matt Lauer, quoting her, trying to make her sound, “mean.”
Of course, we all know why Hillary opened her mouth, now don’t we? Never miss an opportunity to paint yourself as a, “defender of the downtrodden.” Gag! Spit!
For those on the right who are righteously condemning Ann, I’m afraid I can’t agree with you. As someone pointed out on another blog this afternoon:
I haven’t forgotten Maureen Dowd’s now famous words:
I’m afraid that I have to call bullshit on the notion that grieving people have an unlimited amount of criticism-free speech. That is exactly what Ann’s point was, and, I do believe that even if she had not used the, “phrasology,” she did, she would still have been accused of, “smearing,” this (select) group of 9/11 widows.
June 7th, 2006 at 10:58 pm[…] Ann Coulter’s being attacked by people for claiming in her new book (I have it on order) that the “Jersey Girls” (the 9/11 widows who are under “Dial ‘B’ for ‘Bush = Hitler’” in every CBS rolodex) are “enjoying the death of their husbands”. Hell, Cindy Sheehan clearly derived enjoyment from the death of her son, so what’s so wrong about saying it? Anyway, Misha covers it the right way. Posted by Ian S. in […]
June 7th, 2006 at 11:01 pmWhile Ann might not fit my idea of physical beauty, she has one of the most beautiful intellects I’ve ever known of. I’ve read all her books but this one and will read it as soon as it arrives.
I think she was perfectly correct in tagging the “Jersey Girls” as enjoying the spectacle the lefties made of them. I saw the way they acted at the hearing and was badly repulsed.
Duty, Honor, Country
June 7th, 2006 at 11:09 pm(in THAT order)
Rowane
Well, the controversy about Ann’s rhetoric proves her point, doesn’t it? Liberalism has indeed become a religion…and no deviations from its scriptures are allowed, and heretics WILL be silenced. By any means necessary.
The only difference between today’s Left and the Spanish Inquisition: At least Torquemada’s boys used honest torture and murder to punish heresy; they didn’t snark their victims to death…
June 7th, 2006 at 11:18 pmNow, that’s funny!
June 8th, 2006 at 12:11 amI’m sorry but my future bride (even though I haven’t officially received her accpetance yet) can do no wrong.
Being an idiot or being willing to be used is no longer an excuse for light treatment. Quite frankly I think those who do it should be treated as harshly as we should be treating those who deliberately work against us.
Whether they actively sell us out or just enable others to do it, the end result is the same.
So fuck them all and good on Ann.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:57 amNo offense, Sire, but I agree completely with Wes, Mrs. M, et al. Coulter got it exactly right. You’ve got to call liberals on this crap until they cut it out (holding my breath).
Congratulations, Tiberius. Maybe she’ll stop calling me now. I had the same problem with Malkin until HER marriage. I know you ordinary guys envy me, but honestly, it’s no picnic.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:48 amCoulter is correct. Some of these 9/11 widows don’t mind exploiting their husbands’ death to further their own political agenda.
Hundreds of thousands of people every year lose loved ones to crime, terror and hate, but only 9/11 widows are deemed worthy enough to receive millions of dollars and to spew unchallenged diatribes.
Enough already.
June 8th, 2006 at 6:07 amAnyone remember this:
I don’t recall the left attacking Rall with such enthusiasm (Though, a few conservatives did.)
June 8th, 2006 at 6:11 amWith all due respect, Sire, I have nothing but distain for these women. It’s been almost five years, and no the pain doesn’t stop. I still miss my husband, but what these bitches seem to forget is the opportunities that they have came directly from the generosity of the American people. I will never forget nor take for granted all of the love and support I recieved from strangers during that terrible time in my life. It effected me profoundly and gave me hope for humainity that there are still good people in this country. These women have chosen to embrace the victimhood that life has brought them. They have no appreciation nor thankfullness for what others have done for them and it will never be enough. We are not the only people who have suffered the tragedy of losing a loved one. Many people have lost husbands, wives, children, parents through many circumstances and have gone on with their lives with far less support than we have recieved. They are nothing more than low life, slimly, irresponsible, selfish, media mongering whores who ARE enjoing the attention that the deaths of their husbands has brought them, and I am frigging sick of them and their kind. I had to deal with the media the same as they did in 2001. I drew the line at television. I understood that the media didn’t have my best intrest at heart and used them as much as they used me. These sluts had the same choices I did and they chose poorly.
On another note, the “1.6 million” wasn’t given to me for the loss of my husband. It was a payoff to keep me from sueing the hell out of the airlines. The victims who refuse the VCF were awarded ten times the amount, although to my knowledge they haven’t recieved any money so far.
LC Mithglin
June 8th, 2006 at 6:21 amThanks for the pic DJM, gonna go get in trouble in a newsgroup with it.
Duty, Honor, Country
June 8th, 2006 at 8:30 am(in THAT order)
Rowane
My apologies, your Rottiness, but I have to agree with the others here, and say Ann was dead on with her assessment. I watched the unconscionable behavior of those bitches at the 9/11 hearings and elsewhere, spouting their mindless drivel for the media vultures, and so as far as I’m concerned, they deserve whatever vituperation they get.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:13 am[…] STFU. Ann is right. You’re wrong. And at least Misha agrees with me. […]
June 8th, 2006 at 10:04 amOK, just one more time, since it seems like I keep getting misunderstood
:
I’m not saying that Ann isn’t RIGHT, because she’s absolutely spot on, dead center and right on the money. I’m saying that suggesting that anybody would enjoy the actual death, not the ensuing circus that they quite OBVIOUSLY enjoy (skanky hos), but the actual death of their husbands is a poor way of making an excellent point.
As I said, I wouldn’t piss on the Bitches of New Brunswick if their hair was on fire, but even I can’t imagine them sitting on their couches watching the Towers get hit and saying “BOO-YAH! My damn husband got killed! Hooray!”
Yes, I know that’s not what Ann wanted to say, but that’s what the sentence suggests. I write stuff that come off wrong all the time myself, so I completely understand.
Now… I just heard that the sphincters of goats are safer now that a certain Asshole for Allah is dead, so I need to go celebrate.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:05 amI like Ann, I like a lot of what she says, but I have a couple of problems with her.
She has developed this rep as someone who shoots from the hip, not mincing her words. She thrives on saying outrageous things and flat out pissing off liberals, but she really needs to figure out when to shut it off. She is a smart lady, a lawyer by trade, but if she was arguing a case for me in the manner of her talk show appearances…I’d fire her on the spot.
Ann, needs to know when to stop rolling her eyes and flipping her hair when her opponent is debating a point. She should rely on her intellect rather than her acid tongue…liberals fall back on personal insults when they have no cogent facts to back their points up…Ann should remember that and dump that tactic from her arsenal. She has so many more potent weapons than personal or satiric attacks, those things are below her level of intellect.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:58 amIf for no other reason Ann’s comments regarding East Brunswick Bitches has brought out whining ire of the Hildabeast…:lol:
June 8th, 2006 at 11:12 amyou made my point better than I did Juandos.
The screaming, and insulting, and personal attacks fit hitlery’s character much more than Ann’s. That’s the point I was trying to make earlier. Thanks for clarifying……
I guess the coffee hasn’t kicked in yet
June 8th, 2006 at 11:18 amNot knowing these Jersey girls personally, (I’m a ‘real’ Jersey girl myself! ;)) I can’t say this for sure…but don’t you know anyone who deeeeep down in the hollows of their heart, may be less than disappointed if ‘dear ol hubby’ passed on before his time? I mean, it sounds horrible, but I tend to think that of the thousands who lost their significant other on that day, there weren’t a few who on the inside, may NOT have been so sad. Just a thought.
I believe that if you got these gals alone with a little truth serum, you could probably pull these feelings out of them. I think Ann nailed it.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:28 pmAnn is still golden to me. Did she use the wrong word? Maybe, but only because such a large number of people in this country don’t care to look at words as anything more than the shortest definition they can find is. “Enjoy” 1st definition in Myriam Webster: ” to have for one’s use, benefit, or lot ”
it is the 2nd definition which is more common, and therefore assumed by liberals. “to take pleasure or satisfaction in”
Ann made a poor choice of words I think, but at the same time she’s got a wicked sharp toungue and a brilliant mind to drive it with. My guess is that she knows both definitions of the word quite well, and used it to her advantage.
GO ANN!
June 8th, 2006 at 3:34 pmIt’s a case of mind over matter. Those who knew what she meant shouldn’t mind (we know Ann better than that). Those who don’t have a clue, don’t matter.
So we pissed off a few liberals. So we pissed off Bill O’Fartface. This is a bad thing because…???
Seriously. Let’m be pissed. Since when did we give a flying fuck about what they thought?
June 8th, 2006 at 4:01 pmThe Idiot Media™ has their panties in a bunch because Ann call these hags names, and questioned their motives?
Not long ago, on a blog, far, far away, there was a woman, let’s call her… Michelle Malkin….yeah that’s a nice name, and she comes under attack by leftists calling her a sorts of vile things. Those things never made it to the paper…
Ann’s choice of words were poor, she should have used some of the names they called Malkin. Those words evidently don’t make it into the news cycle.
June 8th, 2006 at 5:47 pmPerfectly said, Spatula.
Who cares if Ann upsets these fuckwits? Who cares if some leftist piece of shit goes on the air and cries about how cruel my beautiful Ann is?
This is exactly how we should be treating leftist fuckheads. Cruelty upon cruelty. The more we offend/upset/torment/insult them and everything they stand for, the better.
June 8th, 2006 at 6:27 pmDefending the indefensible…
TigerHawk is Defending the indefensible. I’d say he has some very good points. I guess we’ll have to be unpopular together. *** Promoted from the comments:So someone has finally called out the Jersey Girl Mafia. A couple of years late…
June 8th, 2006 at 9:13 pmDoes anybody know where I can find (online) a written transcript of the Today Show?
Apparently in the course of conversation with Ann, Matty Lauer allowed as how the war in Iraq is not part of the War on Terror. I coulda sworn I heard a guy named George W. Bush say it was indeed part of the War on Terror. Hm, whom should I believe?
June 9th, 2006 at 12:53 pm