Coulter: "I never heard of Scooter Libby until 10 minutes ago"
On the October 27 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said she did not understand why the investigation into the alleged leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity "would have any effect on the White House." At the time, White House senior adviser Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, were reportedly in legal jeopardy in connection with the case. Libby has since been indicted for obstruction of justice, false statements, and perjury. Coulter reasoned: "If he [Rove] is indicted, I feel for him personally. It has nothing to do with Bush and the Republican Party. He doesn't need Rove again, and I never heard of Scooter Libby until 10 minutes ago."
Coulter then responded to host John Gibson's question about indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) by saying, "I think that is not going to inure to the Democrats' benefit, to be having this obviously political prosecution of a political enemy, that just shows them to be the fascists that they are."
Later in the segment, Coulter identified District of Columbia appeals court judge Janice Rogers Brown as her "favorite" candidate to replace withdrawn Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. When Gibson asked why Brown was Coulter's favorite, Coulter responded: "She has a well thought-out, conservative judicial philosophy. She is eminently qualified. And most importantly -- not most importantly, but importantly -- she is a black woman, and that will drive the Democrats so crazy, we might not even be able to execute them in Texas, which is a darn shame."
From the October 27 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
COULTER: And as for Rove and Libby, I don't know. I don't understand why that would have any effect on the White House. He doesn't need Rove anymore. I feel sorry for Rove personally -- I don't know what's going to happen. If he is indicted, I feel for him personally. It has nothing to do with Bush and the Republican Party. He doesn't need Rove again, and I never heard of Scooter Libby until 10 minutes ago.
GIBSON: What about DeLay? His picture is on the screen, as well.
COULTER: I think that is not going to inure to the Democrats' benefit, to be having this obviously political prosecution of a political enemy. No, that just shows them to be the fascists that they are.
[...]
COULTER: And by the way [Bush], if he sends up someone that we have been clamoring for, the deep bench of right-wing --
GIBSON: Some names?
COULTER: Well, my favorite, Janice Rogers Brown.
GIBSON: Why is she your favorite?
COULTER: She has a well thought-out, conservative judicial philosophy. She is eminently qualified. And most importantly -- not most importantly, but importantly -- she is a black woman, and that will drive the Democrats so crazy, we might not even be able to execute them in Texas, which is a darn shame.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Does this woman appear anywhere else besides Fox? Or have the other networks already distanced themselves from her?
As recently as yesterday, CNN was under the mistaken impression that she is a legitimate conservative commentator.
I'm sure this is as truthful as anything else this woman says.
I wish that I could say the same about her.
Lets review what Coulter just said: 1. Lied about knowing who Libby was, 2. Totally blew off criminal indictments as unimportant even though she has made a career out of Clinton bashing on a far less serious matter, 3. Called Liberals "fascists", 4. Expressed dismay at not being able to execute liberals in Texas. Pretty much par for the course.
I'm truly beginning to believe this is an act. This lady is socking the crap money away and writing and/or saying anything she pleases, as long as it is contradictory to the progressive community. Once the gravy train ends, or they get another quasi-female con representative, she, like Liberace, will laugh all the way to the bank. Or buy it.
Wow-- more proof that she is insane
If she never heard of Scooter Libby until 10 min.s ago, how come Fox has her on as a political commentor? Hell, I knew Scooter Libby name before the investagation. I want Fox to give me my own platform on which to ramble like a manaic talking to their invisible friend about things that are obiviously incorrect, a fantasy, or a lie. Then they can pay me. I can't believe anyone takes this creature seriously.
Be prepared folks the neo-cons have received a "most palatable hit" and will now start flailing around like a drunk fighter. Hitting any talking point they can, trying to keep their feet beneath them. So expect to have statements like this become the norm.
Clinton was payback for Watergate, Libby-Rove is payback for Clinton. Where does it end?
Libby is small potatoes.
That's what Coulter meant.
She's right to that extent, he is 'small potatoes'. But she, like many other right-wing bobble heads are still blissfully denying the big picture. This administration is rife with dishonesty and needs to be held accountable for its actions. All we saw today was a soldier impaling himself on his general's sword.
"Libby is small potatoes."
Assistant to the President, chief of staff to the Vice President and national security affairs adviser to the Vice President, 2001 to 2005.
This must be a new Republican talking point being given a test run. It appears that there are going to be many more of them. It is the same thing as when Fitzgerald spoke of "sand being thrown in the umpires eyes" or you could say trying to keep people from seeing the truth.
Most people live in the world of reality not a fantasy world based on ideology.
"Libby is small potatoes."
the statement above is from a fantasy world of right wing ideology.
"Libbby is NO small potatoes"
This time, Ms.Gooseneck is faking her otherwise real time delusions. Queitly, Lewis Libby has been one of the most highly influential policy makers of military matters dating back to his time inside Dick Cheney's Secretary of Defense office. As a private citizen he was instrumental in co-constructing Neo-Con military plans for the Middle East and for Iraqi regime change which President Clinton took into consideration. Karl Rove loves politics as much as Lewis Libby loves war just like his VP boss does for the profit it brings. Be happy that he may be convicted and put away; At least until his presidential pardon.
ufleirx, That's how Fox operates: lies and misinformation ("well at least it's not liberal").
Anyone who followed current affairs would have heard of Libby prior to the investigation.
I was going to suggest you actually meant to say a "palpable" hit, but when I considered that "palatable" actually means "pleasing to the taste," I thought that yeah, maybe palatable is the right word after all. :-)
At first you might think huh? It makes sense in a weird way that Coulter wouldn't have heard of Libby until now; this kind of thinking would account for why she is consistently wrong about current affairs.
Proof, again, that she'll say anything stupid with no self-respect. She's probably enjoying being caught in this lie, too.
"It has nothing to do with Bush and the Republican Party."
Is this woman really that clueless? I don't think so. She'll obviously say anything to prop up this disaster of an administration even if she doesn't believe it herself.
"obviously political prosecution of a political enemy, that just shows them to be the fascists that they are"
Is she talking about the Republicans who impeached Clinton?
"palpable" hit, yes sorry, typing error.
"It's a Joke ... hello." -- sarasota
I buy this argument, if Coulter ever acted like she believes anything she says is a joke. She is a venom spewing shill, always has been, always will be.
Ignorance I can stomach, but not hateful stupidity
Lets review what Coulter just said: 1. Lied about knowing who Libby was, 2. Totally blew off criminal indictments as unimportant even though she has made a career out of Clinton bashing on a far less serious matter, 3. Called Liberals "fascists", 4. Expressed dismay at not being able to execute liberals in Texas. Pretty much par for the course.
All of which you posted about Ol' Liar Ann is 3000% correct and rising, BUT...you forgot this.
5. Coulter voiced her right wing white supremacist racist support of the anti-black black conservative racist of color Janice Rogers Brown, because racist Janice Rogers Brown is more racist and anti-black against her own race than Ol' Liar Ann and other right wing white supremacist conservative racists are towards ALL blacks. If you want to read MORE about right wing racist Janice Rogers Brown, click on to Black Commentator.com, at [link to www.blackcommentator.com,] click the "Past Issues" section, and look for the headline "Bad, Bad, Janice Rogers Brown Is Back."
Returning to Ol' Liar Ann's blatant lies about now knowing who Libby was, that's typical of Ol'Liar Ann. But since the right wing conservative corporate Republican Party controlled news media sustains and reinforces Liar Ann, she knows she can tell these lies. We know that GOP-FOX approves of it, and so does RNCNN, as in Republican National Committee News Network.
The right wing conservative corporatist Republican Party controlled news media continues to protect THE BUSH CABAL, and now they're seeking to make Libby the fall guy, because the Republican National Committee and/or their corporate conservative Republican contributors are ordering them to do so.
I don't which was drafted faster - the Patriot Act after 911 or Libby's resignation after the indictments.
Notice too barely a mention that Libby was officially ALSO an advisor to Bush.
Interestingly, Coulter said almost the same thing the night before on Hannity & Colmes. To quote from my own post about that show and which included her inane comment:
Coulter... gigglingly said, "If... what happened was Rove or Scooter Libby - whom I didn't even know existed until 10 minutes ago - it's as if the Bush Administration would come crumbling down when some functionary at the White House no one had heard of is indicted - No, I don't think so."
[link to www.newshounds.us]
In fairness to Coulter (not that she deserves it), I do believe she was joking about the "10 minutes" but the larger point she was making - that Libby is a nobody, someone she paid no attention to and only recently learned about - is just so implausible that I could only consider it a lie.
"In fairness to Coulter (not that she deserves it), I do believe she was joking about the "10 minutes" but the larger point she was making - that Libby is a nobody, someone she paid no attention to and only recently learned about - is just so implausible that I could only consider it a lie." ...by news hound ellen
=====
Wow a real Newshound staffer? Great! I enjoy the Newshound site, read it daily, AGREE with much of it...even though I'm one of those....Conservatives, you guys , um ...dislike.
===========
"It has nothing to do with Bush and the Republican Party. He doesn't need Rove again, and I never heard of Scooter Libby until 10 minutes ago"....Ann Coulter
=====
I think you're all MISSING the point here. This is Coulter TRYING to DISMISS the IMPORTANCE of Libby and DOWNPLAYING any DAMAGE done to THIS White House by his indictment. It's NOT so much a "lie" ...I mean WHO in their right man would buy this? as it is a Slap at Democrats for even thinking THIS guy is important.
Another words--who the heck is Scooter Libby but SOME bit player? A small fish in a big pond...
A "why us worry" kind of APPROACH Coulter is trying to sell to the general public.
It's simply a throwaway line. Of course Coulter KNOWS Libby...AND she KNOWS we KNOW she KNOWS Libby...BUT she's MARGINALIZING him here.
That's all.
Nobody buys it.
Another words--who the heck is Scooter Libby but SOME bit player? A small fish in a big pond...
A "why us worry" kind of APPROACH Coulter is trying to sell to the general public.
It's simply a throwaway line. Of course Coulter KNOWS Libby...AND she KNOWS we KNOW she KNOWS Libby...BUT she's MARGINALIZING him here.
That's all.
Nobody buys it.
by jeter2 - Sunday October 30, 2005 09:38:57 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Morning jeter. I think we can always count on Coulter to say out loud what other people are trying to spin in more subtle words :)
"Morning jeter. I think we can always count on Coulter to say out loud what other people are trying to spin in more subtle words :)"...by wanderwoman
=====
Exactly. It's like the guy who is with his wife when he runs into an old college girlfriend he dated for maybe at least a year...
Oh her? Mmmmm yeah we ONLY went out a FEW times. No big deal. ;-)
It was snowing here yesterday...now it's warm, and sunny. Ha go figure...well THIS is New England! I'm off to play golf..Have a good one wanderwoman, catch you later!!
seems to me that Republican policy hinges on whether or not it will "drive liberals crazy", nevermind if it's good for the country....of course she knew who Scooter was....Media Matters should be better than CNN and not give her the time of day
whoops, i meant Fox, but....same thing
Ann Coulter knows all too well who Scooter is. Five years ago, while bashing Bill Clinton, she mentioned the pardoning of Marc Rich (again). Scooter was the attorney of record for Marc Rich.
Ann Coulter knows all too well who Scooter is. Five years ago, while bashing Bill Clinton, she mentioned the pardoning of Marc Rich (again). Scooter was the attorney of record for Marc Rich.
by sl aronovitz - Sunday October 30, 2005 03:19:01 AM EST
All due respect, your comment indicates that you either don't understand an attorney's role, or you're being intentionally obtuse. In our form of justice, it is presumed that EVERYONE deserves an advocate. Charles Manson DESERVES an attorney. If every attorney vetted their client before representation, it would serves to prejudge their client's perspective and deny them access to effective council. I think at one point in her career as an attorney, Hillary Clinton represented a or the Black Panthers. This is no more a definitive reflection of Hillary Clinton's charachter that Libby's representation of Marc Rich.
If you weren't aware of this, grow. If you were aware of this, be for real.
"This is no more a definitive reflection of Hillary Clinton's charachter that Libby's representation of Marc Rich."
Uhhhh, I don't think that was the point of sl aronovitz's post. They were merely pointing out that Ann should be familiar with Libby. Nothing about what this says about Libby's character. So in that light, here's your words back at you:
"If you weren't aware of this, grow. If you were aware of this, be for real."
Uhhhh, I don't think that was the point of sl aronovitz's post.
by losingfaith - Monday October 31, 2005 11:29:28 AM EST -
While I certainly can't mindread and speak for sl aronovitz, perhaps you can, it is the meaning that I came away with from his/her post. If sl aronovitz wishes to correct me as to his/her meaning, as I believe ONLY he/she can, I will be happy to "grow." Your "opinion" of what sl aronovitz meant notwithstanding.
I didn't see anything that SL said that warranted your speech about how "everyone deserves an advocate", either. I don't see why sl has to defend himself against your interpretation, since it seemed to have no basis at all. What is there that led you to believe he didn't think people deserved representation or that lawyers should be held guilty by association? I don't see it, and I don't think anyone else does either, so I'm curious.
The comment that interests me is Ms. Coulter's (yes, I really believe she's a woman) shock that the prosecution of Tom Delay is political. It better be or the Democratic and Progressive ideal for this country is doomed. Why would it be so difficult to say "I'm going after this guy because of his politics. Along the way I am going to indulge in ad hominem assaults, bring in lying putative 'veterans,' insult his wife, and generally trash the guy's character: in Delay's case this is easy.
The right has no trouble doing this to progressives. People like O'Reilly and Coulter, who are professional filth, do this daily. Do I need to remind people that Ann Coulter is the fiend who wished that Timothy McVeigh had taken his bag of nitrates into the New York Times building? And this woman gets work? Right, maybe Fox is the last dog kennel that will hire her. She isn't institutionalized in some fancyassed rest home in Connecticut for psychopaths like her?
Okay, you come back at the Right the same way they do at you. You use negative campaigns, lies, smears, and ad hominem attacks. The name of the game is Fight For Your Life. Or Fight for Your Country. By any means necessary.
"Okay, you come back at the Right the same way they do at you. You use negative campaigns, lies, smears, and ad hominem attacks. The name of the game is Fight For Your Life. Or Fight for Your Country. By any means necessary."
I disagree. The problem with doing so is that the right wing controls a great deal of media, and so their exposure of the lies, smears and ad hominem attacks would be devastating. The conservative pundits are always going to make arguments to their own best advantage, so there's no use in giving them valid complaints. It's better to force them to lie and misrepresent in order to make their "points". That being said, what Democrats do need to do is be more vocal in their own defense. In that regard you are correct that the "nice guy" attitude is damaging, as it allows the lies and smears of the right to fester and gain more credibility. There needs to be a more assertive attitude, to be less afraid of alienating people by criticizing the opposition, or afraid to give lies credence by responding to them.
A big part of the problem with our system now is that many people believe that everyone in Washington is a corrupt liar. Well, many of them are, on both sides of the aisle. But to embrace such tactics is only going to magnify that problem, and more people will not care about the type of blatant corruption, hypocrisy and lying that we are seeing from this administration. They will just think that there is no other option.
by brabantio - Monday October 31, 2005 09:40:21 AM EST -
Hey Brabantio, good morning! I think its unfair and not supported by any tangible facts that: "The problem with doing so is that the right wing controls a great deal of media, and so their exposure of the lies, smears and ad hominem attacks would be devastating." To accept that as fact, is to discount the individual arguments on many of these issues. As opposed to just labeling the media as "right wing" wouldn't it seem more up front and intellectually honest to address each issue on its merits?
Places like MMFA have a forum to address those issues on an individual basis, therefore each issue can stand or fall on its own merits, as opposed to just labeling, which serves to discount a wide range of perspectives out of hand, without an intelligent, respectful exchange of ideas and counterpoints. That seems to me to be a better, more informed approach. The Dan Rather fiasco comes to mind. The issue was addressed specifically and debunked with facts, as opposed to just a broad, all emcompassing dismissal of the report because it was a "liberal mouthpiece."
"To accept that as fact, is to discount the individual arguments on many of these issues. As opposed to just labeling the media as "right wing" wouldn't it seem more up front and intellectually honest to address each issue on its merits?"
It's quite obvious the right-wing has tremendous influence in the media. You can look at FOX, clearchannel, Limbaugh, for the best examples. Also you see many examples of misinformation passed through supposedly "liberal" channels, as documented here. Even the networks are owned by companies with strong interests in war, corporate welfare, tax cuts - and in the print media while many reporters may lean left, the editors and publishers lean right, acting as a filter. So while you have networks and newspapers that are clearly right-wing, there is nothing that balances that on the left;not the NYT, not NPR, not even PBS.
I'm very interested in addressing each issue on its merits, but you are not making it clear what that has to do with my argument at all. I didn't "label" the media as anything. The right wing does have an advatage in getting their message out, and I find it hard to believe you take issue with that.
Also, if you are attempting to use the Dan Rather memo as an example of a "smear" or "lie" that was debunked, you are sadly mistaken. It was never proven to be a forgery, and the content of it was not questioned at all. Also, many people did discount it because it was a "liberal mouthpiece", and many more people have questioned CBS in general since on such grounds, so your point is not well taken.
by brabantio - Monday October 31, 2005 10:15:37 AM EST -
Thanks, My point was that I can stand here and discuss the Alito nomination and scream at you that the "left wing" press isn't giving him a fair shake and merely pointing out that he dissented in an opinion that served to limit abortion. You can scream back at me that the "right wing media" isn't pointing out strongly enough the he has voted to limit abortion. In the meantime, we come to dislike each other, and make wild accusations not supported by fact about the media's alleged bias, and NEVER ACTUALLY discuss the merits of the case we're arguing about. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more. Those types of allegations can never be proven factually one way or the other, and the real debate is ignored.
"Those types of allegations can never be proven factually one way or the other, and the real debate is ignored."
Fine, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. I'm not discounting information in general based on its source, I was saying that lying about and smearing of Republicans would not be effective because the right wing has an advantage in getting their message out in the media. They do. Arguing issues on their merits (which I am all for, as neocons can rarely if ever win on that battlefield), has nothing to do with that point. Your response had no relevance.
by brabantio - Monday October 31, 2005 10:47:08 AM EST
Thanks Brabantio and I don't really want to go on and on about it, but I think that your allegation, "the right wing has an advantage in getting their message out in the media. They do." is just not supported by any tangible, despositive factual evidence. Therefore, without any actual definitive answer, people of differing perspectives can essentially get into a "do too.......don't either..........do too........don't either...........do too...........don't either............." type of debate which is counterproductive and solves nothing. But again, not that big of a deal, just something that we can all get lured into, which is really not intellectual nourishment and enlightening to either side.
"I think that your allegation, "the right wing has an advantage in getting their message out in the media. They do." is just not supported by any tangible, despositive factual evidence."
Then you can surely tell me what the left-wing equivalent to FOX is. FOX clearly pushes the right-wing talking points in a continuous manner. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page is another example, where recently there was a lie-packed column regarding the Plame investigation. Where is the balance to this? Where are the newpapers and networks that are lying for the liberal cause? Be aware that lying or misinforming makes all the difference here;reporting true facts or stories that reflect badly on Republicans do not qualify as bias, no matter how much the MRC tells you otherwise. If it's true, there's no way to suggest that it's pushing any agenda without making a ridiculous assumption, unless the significance of it is being clearly overstated.
For example, how long did it take the media to pick up the Downing Street Minutes? A month? Now that was never discredited in any way, and it was certainly newsworthy. There's no rational explanation for the lack of attention, if you really believe that the left has equal footing in the media. On the other hand, when riots break out in Afghanistan, even the networks relay the right-wing talking point that Newsweek was responsible, a notion which is baseless at best. In fact, even after being flat-out contradicted by officials in our military and leaders in Afghanistan, you can still hear it being recycled.
I'm not sure if it's possible to "prove" that the right wing has this advantage, but all indications support my comments. I would be greatly surprised if you can argue otherwise.