Ann Coulter, speaking over the weekend at the Center for Reclaiming America, about the seven abortion clinic doctors and staff who have been killed over the years:
“Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I’m not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened…”
But then, who am I to criticize Ann Coulter? She’s only joking.
ANNE, YOU SHOULDN’T ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE SEEN IN PUBLIC WITHOUT YOUR MAKEUP.
That Anne, she’s quite the cut-up. She tells me that she really loves getting it up the ass from strangers and liberals.
If Ann didn’t have such a big dick, most the right wingers on this blog wouldn’t be so attracted to her.
They’re going to hurt or threaten the wrong person one of these days. Then, marching and screaming at abortion clinics may become a little more dangerous.
My bet is, they’ll fold up their tents and go home, because basically they’re cowards and snipers.
Sorry about the length of this, but Wingnuts, please read this and then shut the hell up.
Libby’s guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for:
1- No underlying crime was committed. Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald’s explanation that Libby’s obstructions prevented him — and the grand jury — from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.
2- There was no concerted White House effort to smear Wilson. In his October 2005 press conference announcing Libby’s indictment, Fitzgerald alleged that, in 2003, “multiple people in the White House” engaged in a “concerted action” to “discredit, punish, or seek revenge against” former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In August 2006, it came to light that then-deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage was the original source for syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak’s July 14, 2003, column exposing CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. Numerous conservative media figures subsequently claimed that this revelation disproved the notion of a “concerted” White House effort to smear Wilson. But to the contrary, David Corn — Washington editor of The Nation and co-author of Hubris (Crown, 2006) the book that revealed Armitage’s role in the leak — noted on his Nation weblog that Armitage “abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson” and that whether he deliberately leaked Plame’s identity, “the public role is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson’s CIA employment against her husband.”
3- Libby was not responsible for the leak of Plame’s identity. Some in the media have suggested that because Libby did not discuss former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity with Novak — the first journalist to report she worked at the CIA — he is not technically responsible for the leak. But such claims ignore the fact that Libby discussed Plame’s CIA employment with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on several occasions prior to the publication of Novak’s column naming Plame as a CIA operative.
4- Libby merely “left out some facts.” Some media outlets — such as The Washington Post — have suggested that FBI agent Deborah Bond testified at the trial that Libby simply “left out some facts” when he was interviewed by her in 2003. Specifically, the Post asserted that Bond said Libby “did not acknowledge disclosing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters.” In fact, Bond testified that Libby actually denied having leaked Plame’s identity or having had any knowledge of her — this despite the fact that two reporters had already testified that he leaked Plame’s identity to them.
5- Libby’s leak was an effort to set the record straight. Critics of the CIA leak case have repeatedly claimed that the indictment stems from an effort by Libby and Vice President Dick Cheney to rebut a purportedly inaccurate attack on the administration by Wilson. According to these critics, Wilson falsely accused Cheney of having sent him to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country. In fact, Wilson, in his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, did not say he was sent by Cheney. Rather, Wilson wrote that it was “agency officials” from the CIA who “asked if I would travel to Niger” and “check out” a “particular intelligence report” that “Cheney’s office had questions about,” so that CIA officials “could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”
6- There is no evidence that the Plame leak compromised national security. Some media figures critical of the CIA leak case have attempted to downplay its significance by claiming that no evidence exists that the public disclosure of Plame’s identity compromised national security. In fact, news reports have indicated that the CIA believed the damage caused by the leak “was serious enough to warrant an investigation” and that the subsequent disclosure of Plame’s CIA front company likely put other agents’ work at risk. Further, Fitzgerald stated that Plame’s identity had been protected by the CIA “not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.” And in their recently published book, Hubris, Corn and Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff reported that, at the time of the leak, Plame was the chief of operations for the CIA’s Joint Task Force on Iraq, which “mount[ed] espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have.”
7- Fitzgerald is a partisan prosecutor. Over the course of the CIA leak investigation and the Libby trial, conservative media figures have attempted to cast Fitzgerald as a “prosecutor run amok” who is engaging in “the criminalization of politics.” But Fitzgerald’s background and prosecutorial record undermine the suggestion that his pursuit of Libby was politically motivated. Indeed, Fitzgerald is a Bush administration political appointee who, as U.S. attorney, has investigated high-level public officials from both parties, including former Illinois Gov. George Ryan (R), Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (D), and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D).
8- Fitzgerald exceeded his mandate in investigating violations beyond the IIPA. The administration’s defenders also have accused Fitzgerald of exceeding his original mandate. Media figures have repeatedly asserted or implied that Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate possible violations of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which prohibits the knowing disclosure of the identity of a covert intelligence officer. In fact, his mandate was far broader. The Department of Justice granted Fitzgerald “plenary” authority to investigate the “alleged unauthorized disclosure” of Plame’s identity.
9- Plame’s employment with the CIA was widely known. This falsehood has taken at least two forms — that Plame’s employment with the CIA was known in the Washington cocktail party circuit and that her neighbors knew that she worked for the CIA. In fact, Fitzgerald stated in the indictment of Libby that Plame’s employment was classified and “was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community,” a finding he reiterated at a post-verdict press conference. Moreover, as Media Matters noted, contrary to The Washington Times’ assertion that “numerous neighbors were aware that she worked for the agency,” none of the neighbors cited in The Times’ own news reports or in other reports said that they knew before reading the Novak column that Plame worked at the CIA. Her acquaintances told reporters that they believed she worked as a private “consultant.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703060008
The more complete Anne Coulter quote:
Earlier in her remarks, Coulter noted that seven doctors and clinic personnel had been killed, saying, “Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I’m not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened….The number of deaths attributed to Roe v. Wade – about 40 million aborted babies and seven abortion clinic workers; 40 million to seven is also a pretty good measure of how the political debate is going.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....ake_2.html
Isn’t Anne Coulter using this “40 million to seven” language to say that the supporters of abortion are winning the political debate? Not exactly a logical statement, of course. And isn’t she using such shocking language to increase her level of recognition, and therefore her level of income?
re 6: Richard. Killing an MD is not the same as aborting a fetus.
It’s legal to abort a fetus, but it’s illegal to murder a person by sniper fire.
All I’m saying is this: If 7 anti-abortion people are snipered to death, I predict they won’t be out there anymore, because I think that basically most of them are troublemakers and loudmouths who lack the courage of their convictions.
7 Lucy, in all honesty, I’d prefer not to see that theory tested by experiment.
Too bad your parents didn’t abort you Dickie. Then we’d have one less worthless lawyer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....42842.html
CPAC’s Gay Porn Star Honoree, Ann Coulter, and the Politics of Personal Crisis
“I don’t know if David Horowitz knew Cpl. Matt Sanchez was once a gay porn star and male prostitute when he introduced him to me at last weekend’s CPAC. But he did know that Sanchez was an eager yes-man, and a supposed victim of the campus PC thuggery Horowitz has made a career out of decrying.”
5 I’m finding it rather curious that I’m hearing the arguments (which I agree are BS) you enumerated coming from all sorts of people and places at once so shortly following the verdict. I have to admit I don’t spend a whole lot of time reading right-wing publications and blogs, but is it possible that the word’s been being spread amongst the party faithful (startings some time ago, but in anticipation of a conviction) as to what talking points to use when the subject comes up?
Richard @6,
One can reasonably disagree whether human life does or does not begin at conception. But I’m pretty damn sure there is universal agreement that life does indeed begin sometime before the end of medical school.
To assassinate a doctor or clinic worker is an act of terrorism intended to intimidate others into giving up that line of work. That is what Ann Coulter was making light of. Terrorism. And in making light of this terrorism, Ann Coulter was herself intending to intimidate abortion clinic workers.
Ann Coulter is a terrorist.
RIGHTEQUALSSTUPID I THINK THE BEST PART OF YOU RAN DOWN YOUR FATHERS LEG.LOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSER.
Headless, I guess if you write a very long post that is totally unreadable, you can claim that you have debunked all arguments. No one will contradict you because they have no idea what you have written. Are you sure you aren’t channeling Klake?
I said Anne Coulter’s statement wasn’t logical. For another false apples and oranges comparison, there were 16,692 homicides reported in 2005, while 60 persons were executed for homicide in 2005. This is a daunting ratio of over 278-to-1, but has nothing to do with whether we are winning the war against crime.
I would also assume that a much higher percentage of people convicted of homicide of abortionists have been executed, than the percentage of people convicted of homicide in general.
re 8: No anti-abortion activist has ever decried the murders, so I can only assume they approve.
How many of the murderers, I wonder, were ever caught and prosecuted? I’ll have to check on that.
If these cases were not vigorously investigated and prosecuted, that would be tacit permission by the authorities to murder abortion doctors.
If that is the case (and I say IF because I don’t know for sure), would you prefer to test the theory of passive inaction to brutal murder?
I am still wondering what obstruction Fitzgerald had from Libby. Armitage told him before getting started that he had leaked Plame’s identity to Novak. If she was a covert agent, then Fitz should have indicted Armitage. He didn’t. What do you conclude from that?
I don’t want a regurgitation of what media matters says, I’d like to hear your logic.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
“Violent protests, in the form of arson, firebombing, and vandalism started in the early 1970’s in the U.S. Then, as now, most of the violence appears to be the acts of religiously-motivated criminals acting alone. However, recent cases involving the assassination and attempted murder of abortion providers in both the U.S. and Canada have shown that perpetrators appear to be sheltered by a network of sympathizers.”
Also re: 5…Your sixth citation touches on something that I sometimes think everyone’s avoiding like the giant cow turd in the middle of the living room rug. The organization Plame was head of (unless they were all totally incompetent) should have had a wealth of documentation showing that the White House’s claims about Saddam’s vast arsenal were pure baloney. With her and her classified organization’s cover blown, no doubt it was standard procedure to destroy all their records or lock them up and throw away the key–for “national security” and to protect whoever else in the group might still be out in the cold. This would suggest that the Bush gang’s primary objective was to discredit Valerie herself, not her husband.
And if what you say is true, they should all be convicted of murder or conspiracy to murder and thrown in jail for the rest of their lives. Is that a good enough denunciation? Or are you implying that this is just a big right wing conspiracy to off all abortion doctors? That is a reprehensible accusation, even from you.
re 17: The evidence would be declared as sensitive intelligence by the same people who were being investigated.
Is that short enough for you to understand?
Goldy @ 12
Let me try to grasp your logic here.
“Those soliders in Iraq were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I’m not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened…”
A rather tasteless and outrageous hypothetical remark. Offensive to most people. But would you call someone a terrorist for uttering it. A sympathizer of terrorism? Or simply a poor choice of words leading into a discussion of why our soldiers are getting killed in Iraq, and whether we are winning over there?
Art, if the CIA had proof of the kind you say, why didn’t they tell someone? You state a pretty big (huge) “should have”. The whole problem here is that the CIA had a political agenda that differed from the administration, and their intelligence gathering followed their ideology.
Of course, Hillary read all the intelligence, and had access to the intelligence before the incident, and yet still voted in favor of invading Iraq. Imagine.
16 Lucy, that’s a bit of a stretch. I used to know the guy who was head of Washington Right to Life, and he deplored violence in any form. However, I must admit this was quite a few years ago, before the abortion issue was commandeered from the Catholics by the fundies. For that matter, western Washington Catholics are a particularly funny lot…some of ’em might hold an anti-abortion vigil one day and get arrested trying to climb the fence at Bangor the next.
Current “Ads by Goooooogle” on Horse’s Ass:
Ann Coulter’s Column Free
Get Ann Coulter’s weekly column delivered to you Free via email.
http://www.humanevents.com/off.....?id=ANN401
Christians Silenced
Protect your right to religious freedom. Find info & take a stand!
http://www.myreligiousrights.o.....e_silenced
Ads by Goooooogle
23. Uh, Janet…can you say, “Classified”? I KNEW you could!
22 That’s a good point, Richard. The whole damned country has long since wasted too much energy and paid too much attention to Anne and her tasteless jabbering. Not quite as bad as the media circus over Anna Nicole Smith, but getting pretty close.
If anything positive has come of it, it’s that more of the public might have read some of the articles or watched the video coverage of the CPAC meeting. In so doing, more Americans whose political views aren’t so hard over one way or the other may have been exposed to some of what this apparently influential group is about. We’ll leave it to them all to make their own judgements.
Of course, Goldy only criticizes the flippant comments that Anne Coulter makes, and never addresses her serious statements:
Former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger literally received a sentence of community service for stuffing classified national security documents in his pants and then destroying them — big, fat federal felonies.
But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo’s wife.
Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000.
By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag and then declining to perjure herself, spent millions on lawyers to defend a harassment prosecution based on far-fetched interpretations of state wiretapping laws.
Liberal law professors currently warning about the “high price” of pursuing terrorists under the Patriot Act had nothing but blood lust for Tripp one year after Clinton was impeached (Steven Lubet, “Linda Tripp Deserves to be Prosecuted,” New York Times, 8/25/99).
Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers.
Bush has got to pardon Libby.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/2.....sinabarrel
@11 It’s not only possible, it’s a lead-pipe cinch … but then, I know you’re being facetious.
Bottom line, Libby was CONVICTED by a JURY of FOUR FELONIES. Gotta admire their slick attempts to talk their way out of this one; but I don’t think it’ll stick to the wall.
@12 Unfortunately, Goldy, Coulter is a lawyer and knows exactly how far she can go, and exactly where to stop. A lawyer can get her license yanked for advocating violence; Coulter doesn’t do that, she only says she “understands” it. Not enough, just barely. One of these days she’ll slip and go too far, though. I wonder what state(s) she’s licensed in. She graduated from a Michigan law school, so that would be a logical place to start. You don’t have to be a judge or lawyer to file a complaint with the bar association; anyone can.
Of course, I’m not the only one who’s thought of it:
“Disbar Ann Coulter
by AmberJane
Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:10:02 PM PST
I learned today from Kos’ frontpager that Ann Coulter has committed a third degree felony with her voter registration. Whether or not she’s prosecuted for it, it’s grounds for disbarment in New York and Washington DC, if my googling hasn’t led me astray.
This is interesting because part of Coulter’s wingnut credibility has to do with her legal credentials, such as they are. Some pinhead puts Fox News on at my gym and I see her up there on the TV, sound off, thank goodness, trading on a certain telegenicity to spout her talking points. I don’t think she has ever changed a mind, and I basically write her off as irrelevant and useless.
However, seeing her disbarred would be helpful in making her go away because practicing law without a license in Florida (including “holding out” oneself as a lawyer) is also a third degree felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000. (Fla.Stat. sec. 454.23).”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/16/2102/31972
Dances With Felons @14
Your pal Scooter just got CONVICTED of FOUR FELONIES, Janet! You can be his pen pal while he’s in stir. If you’re really nice to him, he might even give you conjugal visits.
You know, I sorta hope Bush does pardon Libby. A little criminal-coddling by the Crooks and Liars Party can’t hurt our chances in ’08 …
@15 You’re good Richard — really good. So far 1 killer of an abortion doctor — Paul Hill — has been executed. That’s 1 in 7, compared to 1 in 278 for killers generally. So you have a 40 times greater chance of being executed for killing an abortion doctor than if you knock off a 7-11 clerk. This proves the criminal justice system is picking on right-to-lifers. Good work, Richard. Twit.
Hill isn’t the only abortion doctor killer who is no longer with us. This guy had the decency to kill himself; but as the state didn’t do him in, he doesn’t count. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Salvi
“Christian terrorism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian terrorism is terrorism carried out in the name of furthering Christian goals or teachings. Another widely used term is Christian extremism.”
For complete article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
@16 These cases are, in fact, investigated and prosecuted; and a number of abortion-provider killers are doing time.
@17 The judge didn’t have any problem seeing grounds for the obstruction charge, so the problem must be yours, huh.
@20 “And if what you say is true, they should all be convicted of murder or conspiracy to murder and thrown in jail for the rest of their lives.”
yeah, that’s pretty much been the disposition of the rightwing anti-abortion terrorists.
@22 “A rather tasteless and outrageous hypothetical remark. Offensive to most people.”
Ahhhh … but Richard, Goldy didn’t say that. YOU DID.
@23 “The whole problem here is that the CIA had a political agenda that differed from the administration, and their intelligence gathering followed their ideology.”
Bullshit. They were professionals doing their job. The whole world knows who the ideological liars were.
42 Being professionals doing a job (especially well) would constitute being on the opposite side of an ideological chasm from this administration.
32. Nah. Coulter certainly isn’t making her living as a lawyer. Disbarring her would only feed into her followers’ paranoia, and she’d just keep on squawking for her supper.
Pretty easy to see why that moron Pope-A-Dope didn’t get elected as a judge. People probably saw the kind of right wing talking points he vomits onto these forums and said “Oh HELL no!”
Virtually every major advertiser has bailed on that cunt Coultergiest.
And her ad network dropped her to boot.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer terrorist. HE HE!
Hey bible-thumpers. Looks like you’re not all that popular anymore.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10958656/
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Why are all you religious conservatives so obsessed with sex?
The right wing takes yet ANOTHER well-deserved beating in Olympia!
—
Medically accurate sex education would be mandatory in public schools that choose to teach sex education under a measure that passed the state Senate on Wednesday.
After more than three hours of debate, the bill was approved on a 30-19 vote and now heads to the House. Republicans each walked off the floor after casting their “no” votes.
Under the measure, schools would be required to discuss abstinence with students, but could not teach abstinence without also instructing students about other aspects of sex education including the use of contraceptives.
Opponents argued the measure doesn’t put enough emphasis on abstinence, and that it takes local control away.
Several amendments, including one that would allow schools to choose to have abstinence-only programs, failed.
Adams Apple Annie seems to be enamored with “a procedure with a rifle…”.
Perhaps the good Lord will grant her wish. You know, knock and the door shall be opened.
(The above is Ann Coulter style humor. Any truth or similarity to actual persons or facts is purely coincidental and not related to any person living or deceased.)
(For uptight wingnuts: the disclaimer is also humor. Look real hard and you will catch on).
Hugs and Kisses!
Art: you don’t know the difference between “classified” and “covert”. If this is such a major crime, why wasn’t Armitage indicted? It’s the one question none of you can answer. Unless you can, the Libby case is nothing more than an administration official getting his story confused in front of a grand jury.
Fitzgerald had all the information he needed to decide if a crime was committed. He didn’t indict Armitage, he didn’t indict Rove, and he didn’t indict Cheney. No crime was committed. Time to move on.
I still bet Libby’s convictions will be overturned on appeal.
When Americans are being killed because of the Bush regime’s decision to out a CIA agent who had covert ties around the world, I am sure it will be of great comfort to their families to know that the minutia of American legal statutes governing the Libby case, i.e., the difference between classified and covert, was the difference.
Janet S is just another chickenhawk Publican who doesn’t have any kids at risk in Iraq and for whom all this is simple mental masturbation.
Stupid @ 48.
Sex is not the issue.
It’s the age of the students getting this information.
Once again, the “for the children” party shows it’s hypocracy.
“jane-“t s. you ignorant slut.
What is it about being convicted for “OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE” don’t you understand?
Libby is the firewall between the Rule of Law (Fitzgerald) and Armitage, Cheney, Rove, & Bush (outing an undercover CIA operative and destroying a 20 year CIA undercover operation that tracked REAL WMD’s.
To not believe Libby committed multiple FELONIES, is to completely subvert the US Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Who else on the planet wants to accomplish that goal?
Answer: al Qeada.
Nice to know that YOU and YOUR traitorous ilk are one of them. You ignorant SLUT.
@48 Well, it goes to show you how completely STUPID Republicans are — they think it’s possible to get teenagers to abstain from sex. For an encore, they’re going to amaze all of the state’s plumbers by making shit flow uphill.
JANET S IS JUST DOING IT (PARROTING RIGHT-WING TALKING POINTS) FOR THE MONEY.
IT’S A JOB. SOMEBODY HAS TO DO IT.
@50 “janet s says: … Fitzgerald had all the information he needed to decide if a crime was committed. 03/08/2007 at 8:13 am”
This illustrates perfectly how wingnut spin works. The argument doesn’t work, because it’s based on a lie, the lie being that Fitzgerald — being armed with all the facts — concluded no crimes were committed by anyone except Libby.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Fitzgerald said Libby’s crimes prevented him from getting the facts and determining whether other crimes were committed, and by whom. The nature of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE is that it interferes with the investigation and prosecution of substantive crimes.
Once again, Janet Slut proves her arguments depend on lies.
I understand there is a black neocon named pudwhacker or puddybud, that posts on this blog. Is that right?
I just want to say I need to meet another conservative who’s a minority like me and willing to listen to me whine and lie about libitards who called me a ‘Baby Killer.’
Afterwards, we can have HOT, man-on-man, Gay porn sex.
You up for dat? Hannity was. Andy Coultergiest let me suck her/his dick and I stuck my falafel in Bill O’Reilly’s ass.
You up for dat?
Roger Rabbit @ 56
Scooter Libby may have “obstructed” justice, but it doesn’t appear that his “obstruction” was successful in ultimately preventing justice. Had Libby not “obstructed” justice, there would have been no crime whatsoever for justice to address.
Richard Armitage was the person who “outed” Valerie Plame. That fact appears undisputed according to all the media accounts, while other issues are in dispute.
For whatever reason, Armitage wasn’t indicted. Maybe Plame wasn’t legally covert enough to make “outing” her a crime. Or maybe Armitage didn’t know that Plame was legally covert, so he lacked the specific knowledge that would have made the “outing” a crime.
Also, it is unclear when Fitzgerald found out about what Armitage had done. Some sources say this was known at the outset of the investigation, before Libby was ever questioned. On the other hand, perhaps an argument could be made that Libby’s lies delayed Fitzgerald in determining that Armitage was the person who had “outed” Plame, or even hindered Fitzgerald in ultimately deciding that Armitage had not committed a crime.
Obviously, lying can be obstruction of justice, even when no crime has otherwise been committed. For example, if the prosecution originally thinks that a crime might have been committed, and the lying delays and hinders the prosecutor’s investigation in the situation where the prosecutor ultimately determines that no crime was actually committed.
It is just as important that a prosecutor be able to clear innocent persons who are accused of crimes, as for the prosecutor to be able to charge and prosecute people when there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. Perhaps even more so. So I presume that Libby’s “obstruction” delayed Fitzgerald in clearing the innocent, as opposed to preventing Fitzgerald from prosecuting the probably guilty.
50 Janet, what I’m surmising is that once Plame’s operation was outed, the CIA would have immediately classified all of its documentation and either destroyed it or sequestered it with “eyes-only” availability only to a few high officials in the administration. Get it? This would have provided a means of locking away from public view (and making it a high crime for anyone in the CIA to even mention it) information that the administration would have found embarrassing. Just like what her husband found (and what subsequent experience amply demonstrated) Dubya et all took us to war on the basis of a collosal lie.
I don’t quite understand the liberal comdemnation here of Ann Coulter .. Obviously what she said to most people is way out of line , over the top . Derogatory .
But the same type of perjoritives are used on this blog all the time . Not only that , people hide behind anonoymous names and call the President and other elected public servants the worse kind of venomous names . Not only showing hatred for those who share another opinion, but attempt to make the person some how appear inferior in character . Thats the Ann did , thats what you do all the time .
@ 61
I think the difference is that people posting here on a local blog are not in the same public position as someone who presents herself as a “Constitutional lawyer” and is a frequent “commentator” on network news shows.
While that doesn’t change her right to “free speech” (or that of anyone here, either), it does come across differently when coming from such a public figure.
Also, the fact that the comment was made in a venue such as CPAC, on the same stage as Presidential aspirants, casts it in a different light.
The biggest furor that I have seen from the right-wing blogs is the concern that her rude comments will be seen as representative of conservatives as a whole. I think this is a well-founded fear. I also think she IS representative of conservatives as a whole, as is Rush Limbaugh. They are both hugely popular with the right-wing base.
Some defend her comments by saying that comparing Bush to Hitler is just as offensive. Personally, I would never make such a comparison. Hitler actualy WROTE a book; it is questionable whether Bush has ever READ one.