Another Coulter Joke About Killing Leftists
I have said on many occasions that I do not like Ann Coulter. For me, the final straw was when she said:
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.
She is unapologetic about that statement, telling John Hawkins:
Of course I regret it. I should have added, “after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.”
Ha, ha. Get it? McVeigh shouldn’t have killed everyone in the New York Times building. He should have killed only the editors and reporters.
Well, Coulter has made another funny about killing a leftist. Her latest joke: suggesting that someone should poison Justice Stevens:
“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said. “That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”
Coulter has very strong opinions, and I often agree with her and admire the forceful and humorous way that she states her position. But that doesn’t come close to making up for her tasteless comments about killing leftists. If these are her idea of jokes, she needs to stop telling them.
Then she’d lose some huge speaking fees.
That’s what people expect. Who quotes moderates?
Comment by steve — 1/28/2006 @ 12:46 pm
Yeah, there’s something a bit twisted about Ann’s “jokes.” It’s an obvious flaw, and she should tone it down a bit, but only a bit.
Usually, Ann’s outrageously funny, smart, and quick. She’s got long legs, blond hair, and green eyes, and she drives Liberals into a stuttering, stammering, white hot lather.
Overall, Ann’s delightful.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/28/2006 @ 12:54 pm
She’s the Howard Stern of the Right — she gets paid to be shocking; it’s her entire shtick. The crime here was being unfunny about it; you should never have to say “that was a joke.”
If Coulter’s entire output was of the Ted Rall variety, as these comments border on, your dislike would be more widely shared. Most of her stuff, however, is much more spot-on. It just doesn’t get quoted as it only offends the Left.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 1/28/2006 @ 12:56 pm
I like Ann Coulter.
But let’s face it, if a lefty made a similat comment (and they have), we would jump all over them (and we did).
A little more consistancy and a little less hyprocasy would go along way.
Comment by Marv — 1/28/2006 @ 1:18 pm
A quote from Ann Coulter:
“Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.”
Comment by Black Jack — 1/28/2006 @ 1:37 pm
The lovely Miss Coulter does have a tendency to tasteless jokes; it seems that she finds humor in stuff that most people wouldn’t dream of saying. She’s usually right in her political opinions, but she shoots off her mouth in ways that make her less than a credible commentator.
Comment by Dana — 1/28/2006 @ 1:39 pm
Many on the left react to her the same way many people here were reacting to Joel Stein: “see, she says what most conservatives really believe but are too polite to say in public.”
Comment by aphrael — 1/28/2006 @ 1:41 pm
Keep it up Ann, the so called right better understand we are in a cultural war. This war will not go away soon.
Comment by jeffersonranch — 1/28/2006 @ 3:02 pm
John Paul Stevens is a Supreme Court Justice, not a “leftist”. She’s fantasizing about assassinating one of the top officials of the U.S. She should be completely radioactive, but for some reason, right-wingers find her taste for political violence at most “a bit twisted” or “tasteless”. Creepy.
Comment by m.croche — 1/28/2006 @ 3:29 pm
Its like a blonde wearing a t-shirt that says ‘imagine no liberals.’
Comment by actus — 1/28/2006 @ 3:31 pm
Now I know why I like this site so much.
Comment by nk — 1/28/2006 @ 3:50 pm
Thank you for saying that Patterico. Civil discourse is one way to prevent another civil war. Hate speech like hers only creates more needless strife.
Comment by Psyberian — 1/28/2006 @ 4:21 pm
Mr Croche wrote:
Mr Justice Stevens is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, certainly enough, but he is also a leftist.
As for our descriptions of Miss Coulter, what would you have us say? Do you think that our response ought to be that she should be poisoned?
Comment by Dana — 1/28/2006 @ 4:27 pm
I like Ann. She included “It’s a joke” because lefties are devoid of humor. It’s like “kill the umpire”. No one with one eye and a thimblefull of sense would take that seriously.
Comment by Charlie — 1/28/2006 @ 5:00 pm
This doesn’t make what Ms. Coulter said any better, but it does show she isn’t the only one to make a stupid remark.
Comment by Library Lady — 1/28/2006 @ 5:13 pm
Julianne Malveaux’s comment was at least as bad as Anne’s, and they are both outside the bounds of civil discourse.
Anne, however does not pretend to be a serious journalist, while Ms. Malveaux certainly does. Anne is clearly a performer, and her shtik is to be out on the edge as much as possible.
I think the real comparison is between Jennine Garafolo and Anne Coulter. Both appeal to their respective bases. My impression is that Anne could wipe up the floor with Jennine, but a mud wrestling match would be amusing.
That type of humor, however does not appeal much either to the political middle or to me.
Comment by vnjagvet — 1/28/2006 @ 6:19 pm
95% of the time Ann is spot on, and then there are those occasions she goes out of bounds.
Comment by perfectsense — 1/28/2006 @ 7:09 pm
Ann Coulter can be very witty but her humor is primarily based on sarcasm. Typically, sarcasm is not funny and it is often downright cruel. I agree with Patterico - she needs to stop.
Comment by DRJ — 1/28/2006 @ 8:36 pm
She should be completely radioactive, but for some reason, right-wingers find her taste for political violence at most “a bit twisted” or “tasteless”.
As far as I know, Coulter has not engaged in actual violence. Leave that to Al Franken. So your sentence should accurately read:
Funny how your outrage loses all its punch when you are accurate.
Comment by Patterico — 1/28/2006 @ 9:30 pm
Coulter hasn’t engaged in any political violence but she has been the victim of it (at my own University of Arizona, in fact). And as for rhetoric, the stuff Coulter says is pretty tame compared to the things that are said about her every day. So although I don’t approve of jokes about assassination or forced conversion to Christianity, I also like to keep things in perspective.
The main thing about Coulter’s sense of humor that bothers me is that I can’t recommend her amazingly well-researched and well-argued books to my liberal friends. The tone would be so irritating that I would not want to subject them to it.
I think her books are hilarious, though.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 1/29/2006 @ 4:36 am
I cringe at the “kill” jokes too, but I always remember where Ann got her “go for the jugular” attitude toward liberals - from liberals themselves. She endured the Cornell and Michigan Law crowd as a conservative and developed her counter-attack mode in that environment just to survive.
Comment by Dan Shoop — 1/29/2006 @ 5:44 am
I’m an AnnFan but I’d just as soon see an end to all such fatality “jokes” no matter their source, no matter the target.
The McVeigh/NY Times “joke” was distinctly unfunny at every level. Much as I’d love to see the NYT either straighten up or deservedly go under I don’t think “jokes” involving an American home territory terrorist /murderer are acceptable nor effective ways to make a point.
I think the shock factor runs a little higher when it comes from a conservative because conservatives in general tend to be considerably more restrained/careful in their choices of words than the lefties ever are.
Ann’s a good-enough writer and thinker that she could hit subjects just as hard without the bad taste - the bad taste of her “jokes” and the bad taste they leave in my mouth after reading them.
Comment by Laura — 1/29/2006 @ 6:32 am
Let’s see - Belafonte refers to Bush as “the world’s greatest terrorist” and was on CNN with Blitzkrieg jawing on about Rummy and co being the gestapo. Julianne Malveaux said she hopes Clarence Thomas’ wife feeds him lots of eggs so he will die of a heart attack. Karen Bates of the grey lady said the sound of Trent Lott speaking reminds her of nooses hanging from trees, with black bodies a-dangling. Move On Org explicitly compares GW to Adolf Hitler is their videos. Nine Totenburg of PBS said said hopes Jesse Helms will AIDS from a transfusion.
The list of leftist hate screech goes on … and on … and on …
How come leftists can say the most outrageous things, and they get a pass, a nudge or a wink. Why are we talking about Ann Coulter here?
Ann Coulter is a voice on the right with the guts and elan to shoot straight and say tough things that need to be said about liberal culture. Why is she being shushed up and criticized by people on the right?
Her New York Times remark is bloody hilarious. We all know that it is A JOKE - but some of those professional spin artists who front as journalists in order to con the American public on key issues, offend me a hell of a lot more than a bit of racy off-color humor from Ann.
I don’t agree with everything that comes out of her mouth - but she is smart, provocative and unapologetic. She says things people only dare to think. We badly need more people with that kind of courage.
Comment by Aidan Maconachy — 1/29/2006 @ 6:38 am
The host on a national TV show acknowledged Ann’s sharp wit, and then asked Ann how she might do going head to head in a tussle with Hillary.
Ann responded that such a wrestling match would be totally unfair, because Hillary outweighs her almost 2 to 1.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/29/2006 @ 9:51 am
Jack, if you’ve got the tape of that one . . .
Comment by Dana — 1/29/2006 @ 10:30 am
2 to 1?
Considering Hillary uses a special geisha corset to corral the poundage, and walks around holding her breath … I would hazard more like 5 to 1
Despite her heft advantage though, I have every confidence that Ann could take her.
Hillary has very poor balance. I have often noticed her wobbling as she ascends the podium at lefty snarl fests. Plus she is also rather myopic and squints oddly at times as though her vision is blurry.
The way I see it Hillary would go in low and grab Ann’s thighs. They would both circle in a clinch, grunting and hissing threats …
Hillary: I’m going to nail you good you nazi!
Ann: Don’t bet on it commietard
Hillary would then lunge for Ann’s neck, in a effort to put her in the LRH (Liberal Ratfink Hold). Quick as a whippet, Ann would dodge to one side, then with the shrill neo-con warcry would knock Hillary off balance and pin her to the canvas.
With Hillary flat on her face, Ann seizes the advantage. She puts the Senator in a Full Abramoff - arm around the throat with knee firmly pressing into the small of the victim’s back.
“I give up … I give up!” squeaks Hillary.
“Say ‘Bush rocks’ “, snarls Ann.
“No way!”
The knee presses harder and Hillary starts wailing.
“Say it!!”
“Bush rocks … Bush rocks … Bush rocks!!!”
Ann releases Hillary from the hold and looks over at the guy in her corner.
“You get that on tape?”
“Yep, loud and clear.”
Comment by Aidan Maconachy — 1/29/2006 @ 10:42 am
I side with Ann. Her jokes have targets. We know who they are, and they know who they are. They need to know that they are not as insulated as they pretend, the latter [pretense, especially of superiority] being one of their achilles’ heels. So it’s ok with me if Ann sends them the message - that they are in the crosshairs, so to speak, and are vulnerable. And we on the right are actually at war with them as much as with terrorists - to wit, with the “Big Bullies’ little bullies” [Ludwig Von Skeptic]. Little bullies don’t like to know they are vulnerable.
Of course, criticism of Ann is fine, too, particularly valid dissent within the ranks, which [tellingly] seems taboo on the Liberal side, as already noted above.
Comment by J. Peden — 1/29/2006 @ 11:40 am
So, J Peden, who is the target of a “joke” that someone should murder an Associate Justice of the United States?
Comment by aphrael — 1/29/2006 @ 2:14 pm
Can we all play 20 questions?
Who was the target in a Hollywood movie about the murder of several members of the Supreme Court?
Comment by Black Jack — 1/29/2006 @ 2:52 pm
No, aphrael, Coulter knows it’s not the act you suppose she advocates, but the effect of her words which is the point, which are even more important than the alleged advocacy of the act - words which lead you to worry about the act at all to begin with, when the act is not what she advocates. I think you missed my point: Words and politics are in a major way the proxy for war in our civilized society. If we don’t have this proxy, then all hell is going to break loose. Which would you prefer? I will go with either one, as conditons determining necessity dictate.
Comment by J. Peden — 1/29/2006 @ 4:12 pm
So, then, what is the alleged positive effect of her words about killing an Associate Justice?
I agree that words and politics are to some extent a proxy for war. But I don’t see how that means that advocating the murder of judges, even under the guise of an unfunny joke, is a good thing.
Comment by aphrael — 1/29/2006 @ 5:02 pm
Patterico,
Before you condemn Ann too strongly for her attack on the NY
SlimesTimes, keep in mind the following:a) Walter Duranty (who later turned out to be a Communist Party Member) shilled and lied for Stalin in the Times, covering up Stalin’s genocide. He knowingly aided and abetted the murder of millions of Ukrainians. 60+ years later, when the
SlimesTimes knew this to all be undeniably true, they still refused to return his Nobel Prize.b) During WW2, A.O. Sulzberger knew about the Holocaust, but covered it up at worst, and strongly downplayed it at best, allegedly because of his fear that it would reverberate as Jew-hatred against American Jews, but it really came down to his fanatic anti-Zionism as part of his membership in the old American Council for Judaism.
c) During Mao’s reign, hundreds of thousands of Chinese refugees poured into Hong Kong and Macao, to escape the massive forced starvation of the Great Leap Forward, where upwards of 30 million died, and later during the Cultural Revolution, where likely more than a million died. None of the Chicom genocide was covered by the
SlimesTimes, although certainly their reporters must have heard from refugess about the mass murder.So there you have it —
SlimesTimes definitely knew and covered up two of the three largest genocides of the twentieth century, and circumstances strongly implicate them in the third one.So the
SlimesTimes is guilty of complicity in genocides that killed upwards of 100 million people.And given how they heartily endorse Islamofascism and threaten a second Shoah against Israel and the Jews, it seems that they are aiming to be complicit in yet another genocide, #2 against the Sulzberger’s former people.
So forgive me if I don’t get too worked up over Ann Coulter’s thoughts about what the Times deserves. They knowingly helped millions of others to THEIR deaths.
Comment by Max — 1/29/2006 @ 6:29 pm
Maybe I’m just
old-schoolclassic liberal, but Kos (or someone at Kos) is taking this too far if they’re going to try to silence this woman by claiming she has broken the law.http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/28/121249/002
Comment by Psyberian — 1/29/2006 @ 7:14 pm
aphrael, I’ve already told you about the positive effects. I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said.
Comment by J. Peden — 1/29/2006 @ 8:07 pm
Does anyone else remember when Alec Baldwin appeared on the Conan O’Brien show (during Clinton’s impeachment hearings)? He said that all of us together should go stone Henry Hyde to death. And stone his family, too.
Over the top? Sure. Funny? No, not hardly. Any different from what Coulter said? No. (Although, Coulter immediately added that she was joking, Baldwin did not.)
But the audience who heard Baldwin applauded. Coulter got booed.
Take from that whatever lesson you want.
Comment by Steverino — 1/29/2006 @ 8:41 pm
Psyberian - agreed. That tactic should not fly.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 4:43 pm
Coulter’s a fascist, so this is completely unsurprising.
Comment by Geek, Esq. — 1/31/2006 @ 10:09 am
Ann Coulter’s no more a fascist than you are.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/31/2006 @ 10:47 am
I don’t advocate killing members of the political opposition.
Comment by Geek, Esq. — 1/31/2006 @ 10:48 am
See #14 above.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/31/2006 @ 10:55 am
“See #14 above.”
Its ok if you say ‘its a joke.’ Because its ok to laugh at killing the opposition.
Comment by actus — 1/31/2006 @ 10:56 am
My, my, but you Lefties sure have your panties in a bunch today. How delightful.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/31/2006 @ 11:01 am
Is also ok to use feminizing as a way of ridicule.
Comment by actus — 1/31/2006 @ 11:05 am
Sure thing, Tinkerbell.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/31/2006 @ 11:06 am
Specially with coulter.
Comment by actus — 1/31/2006 @ 11:12 am
Ironic that a Freeper would use gender-bending insults in defense of his pinup girl with an Adam’s Apple.
If anyone was under the delusion that Coulter isn’t fascist:
Comment by Geek, Esq. — 1/31/2006 @ 11:26 am
Relax guys. It’s just one little ol lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It ain’t like it’s the end of progressive taxation, nor even the era of big government, so let’s try and keep things in perspective.
Now, I know it seems like the end of the wrold, but the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, and the UN will still be corrupt and ineffectual, just like in the good old days, before Bill and Hill pinched the White House silverware.
The sky isn’t falling and most of your illusions are still intact. Look on the bright side, GWB can’t run again. So he can’t beat the snot out of another Jackass.
PS: I really enjoyed the quotes, got any more?
Comment by Black Jack — 1/31/2006 @ 11:51 am
As Ann’s recent “raghead” remarks clearly demonstrate, she does indeed go over the top in an effort to rattle PC sensitivities. These shock tactics certainly grab attention. Kind of like the Muhammad cartoons.
In upping-the-ante with her rhetoric Ann risks becoming a caricature herself. But then in the wake of the Muhammad cartoon imbroglio, hordes of Muslim caricatures took to the streets to shriek in a manner that makes Ann seem like the quintessence of civility.
Are there screaming regiments of Anns on the American right burning effigies of Ahmadinejad, torching embassies and chanting death slogans? No there aren’t. There is a solitary colorful character who stands out on account of her willingness to shock conventional proprieties.
Look … we have just witnessed the taboos of Islam being acknowledged by editors and politicians throughout the West who willingly tacked a “sensitivity caveat” onto freedom-of- expression as a direct result, I might add, of mass hysteria and naked threat. Apparently being “out there” with your rage works (note to Ann detractors). Bill Clinton, Jack Straw and others are up on the bike back-peddling with the best of them. Notice that none of these champions of respect had even a whimper of outrage when art exhibits featuring the Christian cross dunked in urine and an elephant dung portrait of the virgin Mary were doing the rounds. If Muslims had been as restrained as Christians in the face of blasphemy, we would never heard a peep out of these upstanding folk and editors would have been falling over themselves to re-publish.
Yes - mob hysteria and intimidation works.
Now that increasing numbers of conservatives are set on “outing” Ann as a closet something-or-other-unpleasant. Doubtless their high minded civility will be noted by the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who will welcome such dhimmi-like concessions by moving immediately in the direction of peace and reconciliation talks.
I’m not sure what is worse - the naked confrontational barbs of a Coulter or the posturing of the righteous in response to perceived “excesses”.
Comment by Aidan Maconachy — 2/11/2006 @ 7:46 am
Quote from Ann Coulter:
“…Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?”
Comment by Black Jack — 2/11/2006 @ 1:49 pm
Patterico I have not been here in a while but I did stop in and read your comments about Ann Coulter. This is the woman who said that killing John Kerry in Vietnam would be a “good argument on behalf of friendly fire’ She got fired at MSNBC for screaming at a disabled Vietnam vet that “people like him caused us ot lose the Vietnam war”,,she got fired from even National Review, a very conservative paper, and then smeared the editors, said Democrats were secretly happy about the attack on 9/11..said Clinton “masturbates in the sink” Compared Katie Courie to Eva Brown..and says all Democrats are traitors to this country…and even said Max Cleland, a triple amputee of the Vietnam war did not receive his wounds as the miltary said at the battle of Khe Sahn but while drinking with buddies. and that he was lucky to receive such injuries so he could be in a better position to criticize President Bush….She has made hundreds of such statments calling the opposition traitors and more..
Now the really sickening part is that she is not confined to an insane asylum as could be expected but makes millions of dollars promoting such hate and is a regular on many major news programs.
The fact that the Republicans have not openly repudiated her is the exact same thing as some Muslims refusing to take a stand against radical Islam. She is a hate monger unlike any other and her widespread acceptance tells me that this country loves fascism, hate and lies. Your comments give me a ray of hope that we are now a few years away from a repeat of Nazi Germany’s path. She is a hateful bitch but her widespread acceptance is evidence of the ignorance and moral bankruptcy of this coutry.
Comment by Charlie — 2/11/2006 @ 4:44 pm
Charlie makes the following less than credible claims: “This is the woman who said that killing John Kerry in Vietnam would be a “good argument on behalf of friendly fire’ She got fired at MSNBC for screaming at a disabled Vietnam vet that “people like him caused us ot lose the Vietnam war”,,she got fired from even National Review, a very conservative paper, and then smeared the editors, said Democrats were secretly happy about the attack on 9/11..said Clinton “masturbates in the sink” Compared Katie Courie to Eva Brown”
Hmmm, got anything to back any of this up, anything credible that is?
Comment by russ — 2/11/2006 @ 5:01 pm
Its a good that Ann Coulter’s writings seperate the flaming, “panty waist wussies” from the real people who know the enemy when he or she sees one…
Comment by russ — 2/11/2006 @ 5:03 pm
Ms. Coulter was ostensibly let go by National Review for using the word “swarthy” in an article, but the real reason may be that she also called for the US to invade the Middle East, conquer all the nations, and convert them all to Christianity.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/11/2006 @ 5:59 pm
Charlie, I will agree that Ann Coulter is often over the top with her rhetoric. Personally, I believe her intent is to parody the far left.
However, she is correct in her statement that Max Cleland did not receive his wounds in battle. I believe he would be the first to confirm that his wounds were the result of an accidental discharge of a hand grenade. That in no way, however, lessens his dedication to duty nor his service to our country.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/11/2006 @ 7:47 pm
#14 & #50, two different Charlies or schizophrenia?
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/11/2006 @ 7:56 pm
Those are two different Charlie’s Harry.
Comment by Psyberian — 2/11/2006 @ 8:06 pm
Henry Author..You are close but not exact…Cleland received his wounds at the battle of Khe Sahn when he reached down to pick up a live hand grenade he though was safe. If that sense the incident was an accident. Coulter says he was drinking with his buddies..implying he was drunk at the time.. Major difference and totally disgusting.. especially since Cleland has lost both legs and one arm.
Russ.. check out Coluters books and magazine articles and you will find those statements..The incident at National Review was strange. Here are the facts. You judge.. She wrote and article advocating the invasion of Muslim countries and killing of their leaders and converting them to Chritianity. Needless to say the article created an uproar. The magazine apologized for the article and regretted having published it. Soon after she wrote a follow up. According to Editor Rich Lowery they wanted her to make changes, which they said were normal edits to what they described as very poor and incoherent writing. NR says she never returned emails regarding the suggested edits and completely unexpectedly, according to NR, she went on national television and she claimed she had been fired and that NR was censoring her. NR said no such thing had ever ocurred and said it was she who left them without even communicating with them and that she was not censored but they were only editing her as is normal. She also charged they were not paying her or paying her very little and NR denied that too. She then said they were “girley men” and that her firing was because National Review has to “throw one to the liberals” for appearances every once in a while. Rich Lowery then wrote a editorial denying everything she charged saying she was a liar.. ( Dont remember is he used that exact word but that was the meaning)
Quite an interesting story..Was she fired as she claims..which makes National Review a bunch of liars or is she the one lying? Either way she either got fired or is lying…Take your pick. The info I am relaying came from NRO online website, I am guessing, about two years ago. NRO is the source of this story. This is their version.
More I think about it I personally think she was lying about getting fired..she left them and then went national to attack them with lies. Its typical of the way she acts..and she makes big bucks for this kind of thing usually against anyone she smears as being liberal or in cahoots with the liberals, in this case it was National Review. Does the word psycho seem appropriate??
Do a google search on her name and you will find the documentation for all that I have said on this and the other charges I have made. She is a true psycho and its a disgrace to think that such a malicious woman has achieved such fame..Sign of the times..
Comment by Charlie — 2/11/2006 @ 8:33 pm
Henry Author..You are close but not exact…Cleland received his wounds at the battle of Khe Sahn when he reached down to pick up a live hand grenade he though was safe. If that sense the incident was an accident.
The following account can be found here.
The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone (some might call the entire country of Vietnam a combat zone). (Is Iraq a combat zone?) Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way.
As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don’t leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of “ownership” went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.
Maury Cralle’
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan
I don’t wish to pick nits, but when Captain Cleland was wounded by the grenade there is no indication that he was under fire at the time, nor that he was physically at the Khe Sanh firebase, hence my comment. The grenade was dropped by another soldier as they were both getting off a helicopter, not while in direct contact, but certainly within a combat zone and clearly in an area in which combat was taking place in support of Marine units at Khe Sanh. I stand by the remainder of my statement as well that this fact “in no way lessens his dedication to duty nor his service to our country.”
To the extent that Ann Coulter minimized the impact of the injuries to senator (then Captain) Cleland, and either stated or implied that in sustaining his injuries while not in direct contact that he is somehow less worthy or our admiration, her rhetoric was clearly over the top.
On the other hand, senator Cleland’s injuries, no matter how horrible, do not grant him a permanent pass on having his political decisions or voting record questioned by political opponents. Nor does questioning one’s voting record “question their patriotism” as we so often hear these days.
This is the real beef Ann Coulter was expressing with respect to the mythology surrounding senator Cleland’s defeat for re-election, which involved questions about his voting record on the so-called Patriot Act. His voting record in general was also questioned as being too “liberal” for the people of Georgia, who agreed and elected senator Chambliss to replace him.
Ann Coulter does by writing and speaking what political cartoonists do with cartoons. Whether she’s a psycho or not is certainly open to argument but I do agree that the level of civic discourse in the country is probably near an all time low and quite often her statements are not helpful in elevating the quality of the discourse. This does not excuse her, but one could offer the same criticism of Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Edward Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Al Gore and others.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/11/2006 @ 9:57 pm
[...] Finally, consider her history. She has previously joked that someone should assassinate Justice Stevens, and has said, repeatedly, that she regrets that Tim McVeigh did not blow up the New York Times building. [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » More on Coulter — 6/13/2006 @ 6:49 am
naked blond girl…
Thank you. Now back to work!…
Trackback by naked blond girl — 2/2/2008 @ 8:04 am
Liberals want to use armed agents of the state to silence conservatives. Hate speech laws, campaign laws etc.
So advocating killing traitors bent on the overthrow of the Constitution is a crime, while advocating treason is protected free speech?
Sounds like the traitors have control of the courts.
Comment by martin — 2/2/2008 @ 8:28 am
HA - “Charlie, I will agree that Ann Coulter is often over the top with her rhetoric. Personally, I believe her intent is to parody the far left.”
Personally, I think her intent is to make as much money as possible. Sort of the Phyllis Diller of political commentary.
Comment by JayHub — 2/2/2008 @ 11:26 am
Phyllis Diller Lines:
“Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight.”
“Aim high, and you won’t shoot your foot off.”
“I’ve been asked to say a couple of words about my husband, Fang. How about short and cheap?”
“It’s a good thing that beauty is only skin deep, or I’d be rotten to the core.”
Comment by JayHub — 2/2/2008 @ 11:35 am