Hannity, Coulter "don't believe" that Tillman liked Noam Chomsky, opposed Iraq war; Tillman's mother disagrees
On the September 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity and right-wing pundit Ann Coulter told co-host Alan Colmes that they "don't believe" a report that Army Ranger Pat Tillman was a fan of leftist author Noam Chomsky, opposed the Iraq war, and planned to vote for Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in the 2004 presidential election. But according to a September 25 San Francisco Chronicle report that Colmes cited, Tillman's mother said that he had planned to meet privately with Chomsky and that "Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war." Tillman, a former pro football star, served in Iraq before being killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in April 2004.
Responding to Colmes's statement that Tillman "was a Noam Chomsky fan, was going to vote for John Kerry, was against the war in Iraq," Coulter insisted, "I don't believe it." Hannity concurred, saying, "I don't believe it either." After Colmes explained that Tillman reportedly supported the war in Afghanistan but opposed the war in Iraq, Coulter responded, "I think you got that from one of those documents Mary Mapes handed to Dan Rather" -- an apparent reference to CBS' controversial report on President Bush's National Guard service, which was produced by Mapes and relied in part on unauthenticated memos. However, the Chronicle article, which focused on the military's alleged efforts to conceal facts about Tillman's death, quoted Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, directly:
Mary Tillman said a friend of Pat's even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the anti-war author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan -- a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, "Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war."
The Chronicle also quoted Spc. Russell Baer, who recalled a conversation he had with Tillman during the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Baer told the Chronicle, "We were talking. And Pat said, 'You know, this war is so f------ illegal.' And we all said, 'Yeah.' That's who he was. He totally was against Bush." Additionally, the Chronicle quoted Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephen White, who "said Pat 'wasn't very fired up about being in Iraq' and instead wanted to go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan."
In addition, the Chronicle cited an anonymous soldier who said Tillman had urged him to vote for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
From the September 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: Now you say, for example, in "Rules to Talk to a Liberal" --
COULTER: Yes. Do you have -- is this from the new paperback [edition of How to Talk To a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter]?
COLMES: Yes. "Never compliment a Democrat."
COULTER: Yes. That's an important one.
COLMES: "Never show graciousness toward a Democrat."
COULTER: Yes.
COLMES: "Never flatter a Democrat."
COULTER: Yes. I know they sound similar, but they're actually -- there are distinctions.
COLMES: Now you're also quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday --
COULTER: Excellent.
COLMES: -- in an article about Pat Tillman, who it is now said it was a Noam Chomsky fan, was going to vote for John Kerry, was against the war in Iraq. And you referred to him as "virtuous, pure, masculine like only an American male can be." I wonder if you still would say those things, knowing now what we have learned about Pat Tillman. He was a John Kerry supporter.
COULTER: Did you get that from a document from CBS News?
COLMES: No, but that's what you said, so I wondered if you would retract that, given what you say about liberals and Democrats.
COULTER: No. But I don't believe it.
HANNITY: I don't believe it either.
COLMES: He was going to meet Noam Chomsky when he -- had he come back.
HANNITY: He signed up because of a desire to fight.
COLMES: Against Afghanistan, not Iraq. He was against Iraq.
COULTER: I really don't believe that, and I think you got it from one of those documents Mary Mapes handed to Dan Rather.
COLMES: No, that's not true.
More evidence that the facts are biased against the right.
"Oh, excellent." Annie blathered when she heard she was quoted in the San Fran Chronicle. That's all you have to know from this attention starved propagandist.
I don't believe Ann Coulter exists.
(rolls eyes)
The Big Lie must be perpetuated at all costs, facts notwithstanding. We can only hope that the GOP propaganda machine will someday collapse under the weight of its own lies. It's a fantasy, I know, but we can still hope.
Can she go a single interview without promoting her books? I've heard of arrogance going to lengths, but this woman capitalizes on it. I don't know whether to be amazed or disgusted by how she believes her word to be gospel.
But to the article, oh my this is funny. Colmes says "I wonder if you still would say those things, knowing now what we have learned about Pat Tillman. He was a John Kerry supporter." Think about Romeo and Juliet and the rabbling that ensues over learning "*gasp*, she's a Capulet!". If that doesn't work, take Family Guy's Peter and Joe at the company baseball game - "Ok Joe, now get up." [out of your wheelchair]
Haha Coulter, she doesn't believe what's she hearing so she throws a name on it and dismisses it as folly. Yea, that'll do the trick.
Seriously, even if we disagree with her, what is your problem with anybody's, much less Coulter's, self-promotion? Criticize her on substance instead of miniscule little details. Those are just personal attacks, and then you are no better than she is.
Oh man, that's freaking classic! Tillman was so lionized by the administration and the NFL as the crotch-scratching, Bush-loving patriot who was gunned down by our terrorist enemies. Low and behold, not only was he killed by his own side, it also turns out he was a raging liberal.
"Oh man, that's freaking classic! Tillman was so lionized by the administration and the NFL as the crotch-scratching, Bush-loving patriot who was gunned down by our terrorist enemies. Low and behold, not only was he killed by his own side, it also turns out he was a raging liberal." --shawn
------------------------------------------------
To be fair, I know raging conservatives who have come to the same conclusions that it appears Tillman came to. He may have indeed been a conservative. We don't really know that. The only thing we can really conclude is that Tillman appeared to be exceptionally intellectually honest.
The conservative pundits have 2 options. Call Tillman's mother a liar or question Tillman's patriotism. Option A must have looked more appealing.
Some of these conservative types have real issues with the mother's of dead servicemen UNLESS they are STEPFORD WOMEN...like the one on WJ last week...I expected her to break out in prayer any moment.
open_mind - Thursday September 29, 2005 01:00:16 PM EST
Of course I dont know one way or the other but I dont know very many conservatives who are Chomsky fans.
Solon,
Good point. I agree it is likely Tillman was a liberal if the report is true (I have no reason to doubt it), but the report could be wrong or mistaken as well or correct, but maybe Tillman was a rare conservative Chomsky fan. I am just trying to live up to my handle.
It would be nice if there were two independent sources for this information. I have a hard time believing anything solidly based on one source. Considering the likelihood Tillman was at the very least an independent mind, I doubt the media will explore this any further.
Hilarious, the guy's MOTHER confirms it in the paper.
I doubt there are many current or former NFL players who Noam Chompsky fans.
Plato
Because Hannity and Coulter would know Tilman better than his mother. What a pair, that's all I am saying.
--So now the question becomes, will they slime Tillman, or go after his mother? Well, they do have some experience beating up on grieving mothers....
This probably wouldn't be too hard to verify. All Hannity or Coulter would have to do is track down other relatives or close friends of Tillman's. Well, maybe they're afraid they'd find that Mrs. Tillman's story would be verified. Instead, they just engage in shrill 'I don't believe it' tirades.
Don't hold your breath. They're engaging in that new "faith-based" journalism. If you don't believe it, it isn't true.
It's amusing theater however, I believe that Ann Coulter is all tongue in cheek. I think she has a schtick and an image that she sells as being the most outrageous off the chart right winger on the block. I often wonder if she goes home and thinks, "how far do I have to go before people start to figure out that I'm not serious about any of this stuff?" My hat is off to her for pulling the wool over the media's eyes for so long. She is really quite brilliant. Someday, I suspect, she will pull off the mask and let us all in on the joke.
I just had this nightmarish vision off her pulling off her mask and Satan himself would be revealed!!! Gasp! Seriously though, you think she's a comedy act? Has she ever made anyone besides Sean laugh?
wolfe,
She makes me laugh. You should read her columns. Very funny.
I do read them, and her Reagan-obsession lately is getting a little creepy. But at least she stopped re-hashing Ted Kennedy's past for a while.
In case others haven't read it, Coulter comes down pretty hard on Bush in her latest column.
[link to www.townhall.com]
I think your link may be out-of-date, or you're just mistaken. I read the column, and she barely mentions Bush. For the most part, it's her typical irrational, heavy-handed, vitriolic spew.
nerzog wrote: "think your link may be out-of-date, or you're just mistaken. I read the column, and she barely mentions Bush."
I just clicked on it and came up with the September 28th column, "Bob Schrum with a Good Cause".
Bush's name is mentioned 24 times.
My guess is that you probably somehow linked to a different article.
Ann Coulter said that she would not take back the flattering comments she made about Pat Tillman even after she found out that he was a liberal and against the Iraq war. Then she says that she doesn't believe it and brings up a totaly unrelated story about the "unverified" CBS documents in an obvious attempt to deflect the issue. Even when confronted with facts these people continue to live in denial. The "I am never wrong" syndrome. How sad.
center_of_left,
Did anyone notice that Coulter is not taking back flattering comments regarding Tillman.
Regardless of his politics and his views on Iraq, he is indeed a hero. His death is a true tragedy.
My heart goes out to his family.
Did anyone notice that Coulter is not taking back flattering comments regarding Tillman.
If that's the case, then what she said in her book about not complimenting or flattering the opposition no longer has credibility. That was what Colmes' original point. A simple yes or no answer from Ann would have sufficed.
"A simple yes or no answer from Ann would have sufficed."
Perfect.
"I trust you see the distinction between not believing and claiming a story false."
It amazes me that you can actually bring yourself to hit the "post" button sometimes. Colmes told her Tillman was against Iraq, was going to meet with Chomsky. Coulter says "I don't believe it". She also made reference to CBS memos. How can anyone possibly say that she wasn't calling the story false? What else does "I don't believe it" mean if not "I don't believe it's true"? She thinks the story might be true, or is true...but doesn't believe it? What is your scenario here, exactly?
brabantino,
Apparently you need a course in logic.
Here's and example. I read an article where Kerry said, "I will release my military records to the public".
I don't believe him.
Am I saying the story is false? No.
I am only saying I need further proof than his statement to convince me.
Coulter and Hannity are simply opining that they require more proof before they believe. Simple as that.
"Here's and example. I read an article where Kerry said, "I will release my military records to the public". I don't believe him. Am I saying the story is false? No."
Here's one thing I remember from my logic course;false comparisons. You're talking about a future event there. It's not verifiable, so there's really no way you can determine the veracity of it at that time. Such is not the case here, because the information is verifiable. Now if it was "I DID release my records" and you said "I don't believe it", then you would be saying the story is verifiably false. You're comparing the evaluation of a prediction to the questioning of a current assertion.
Now, back to the example of this thread...how can Coulter mean anything besides a false story? I eagerly await your next otherworldly argument!
brabantino,
hahaha.. otherworldly? Pretty funny!
I might agree with you that my example is about a future event but Kerry actually made the statement over a year ago and still hasn't released his records to the public. (But that is a different story.)
However, remembering back to the Coulter segment on Hannity and Colmes, it looks to me like this is the first time Coulter has heard that Tillman was a Chomsky fan.
So Coulter doesn't believe that Tillman was a Chomsky fan. Rather than take Colmes statement at face value, she said she simply did not believe it and then made some remark about the source being CBS and Mary Mapes.
I don't think she ever said, "The story is false" nor did she say, "the author is a liar", nor did she say, "Tillman's mother is a liar." She simply said in effect that she didn't believe Tillman was a Chomsky fan. As we see here every day, just because one is presented an argument, quotes, and references, people can choose to either accept the arguments or dismiss the arguments.
With regards to this little segment, it seems to me we are at an impasse. But I've enjoyed the conversation. Thanks. ;-)
"I might agree with you that my example is about a future event..."
You might? Your statement at the time, no matter what happens or does not happen afterwards, was not immediately verifiable, and that makes your comparison garbage.
"So Coulter doesn't believe that Tillman was a Chomsky fan. Rather than take Colmes statement at face value, she said she simply did not believe it and then made some remark about the source being CBS and Mary Mapes."
But what basis does she have to doubt Colmes here? Did she know Tillman? I don't think so. As for the Mary Mapes comment,what are you suggesting that meant? Wasn't the whole outrage over that memo that it was supposedly fake? What else do you argue she could possibly be implying by making that comment?
"As we see here every day, just because one is presented an argument, quotes, and references, people can choose to either accept the arguments or dismiss the arguments."
I notice you didn't put "facts" on that list. It's not a matter of opinion here, which you accept or dismiss based on the merit of the supporting evidence. To dismiss the information out of hand means calling someone a liar. A better example would be if you said you had a job, and I were to say I didn't believe it. I have no knowledge of you, and it's certainly something that's verifiable. Of course it's the first I would have heard of it, since it's not information I would have access to, any more than Coulter had access to those details about Tillman. Now, if I were to say that to you, would you really think I wasn't calling you a liar? Would you think I just needed more evidence? Would you not wonder what basis I had for questioning it at all? Coulter suggested the story was false, no matter how you cut it.
"With regards to this little segment, it seems to me we are at an impasse."
Yes, and as it stands right now you did not make the distinction you suggested was so obvious.
brabantino,
Ahh a night of rest and reflection....
Let me start by saying you made some very good points yesterday regarding Coulters response to Colmes. I understand completely your point of view and your interpretation, which is indeed a valid one and the prevailing view of those commenting here. I also think you did a great job of discussing these points. I apologize and take back everything I said about you needing a 'logic course'. Upon reflection I see that you are very logical and presented your case very well.
Following your reply somewhat later, blueblood chimed in and I think bb also makes some valid points:
blueblood wrote: "With all due respect...your argument might hold more water if either Coulter or Hannity typically showed themselves to be the sort of person who maintains an open mind and tries to withhold judgment until they have more information. However, if their public personas are anything to go by, this is emphatically not the case -- rather the reverse, in fact! Neither Coulter nor Hannity is the kind of person who readily or willingly concedes a point –- instead, both seem to demonstrate a decided inclination to ignore or dismiss or discredit any information which conflicts with the conclusion that they’ve already drawn."
I agree with blueblood. It goes without saying that they are partisain.
blueblood wrote: "There are people who are utterly determined to be “right”, to the point that they'll cling doggedly to their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary –-"
I would say that applies to most of us. :-) No argument there.
blueblood continues: "and frankly, I'm quite a bit less sanguine than you are that anything short of hearing it from Pat Tillman's own mouth (which is of course impossible) would be sufficient to convince either Coulter or Hannity that Tillman might have been a Chomsky fan. They're entitled to believe whatever they like, of course -- but just because they refuse to aceept it doesn't automatically mean that it might not be true!"
If Tillman being a Chomsky fan is indded accurate, (I'm not saying it isn't.) I am not sure that Coulter and Hannity will not eventually change their mind. However, I think blueblood states the obvious in the last sentence.
You may recall I never argued that the statement regarding Tillman isn't true. My only contention is that Coulter and Hannity are like most people when confronted with arguments that counter their belief. They simply don't believe it. I would guess that in their mind, the statement by Colmes regarding Tillman and Chomsky, was not enough, at the moment, to persuade them.
Call it human nature. But I have seen this happen many times and been guilty of it myself when in discussions that something is said that I believe can't possibly be so. I am not saying the person is a liar. I am not challenging them, I am simply saying that I haven't yet been convinced. Many times it just takes a little time to let this contrary idea settle in for me to rearrange my thinking. I may be wrong, but I am transferring my experience to Coulter and Hannity, thinking they are reacting much the same as I would.
The interesting thing to see is if Coulter and Hannity do assimilate this new 'contrary' picture of Tillman into their 'view' and see how they react.
I agree with someone else, Colmes did get the zinger in and it looked to me that Coulter was caught completely off guard which led to her disbelief.
Thanks again for the time and thought put in this discussion.
"But I have seen this happen many times and been guilty of it myself when in discussions that something is said that I believe can't possibly be so. I am not saying the person is a liar. I am not challenging them, I am simply saying that I haven't yet been convinced."
Thank you for your admissions and retractions. However, you still talk about doubting something like this and calling someone a liar as if you could seperate them. You can't. If you doubt someone, you think the story is false, and there's no way around that. In itself, it is challenging the story. Now as a question of degree, as you put it, when you "haven't been convinced" you seem to be talking in probability. The story is probably or even possibly false. In many cases that's fine, but such doubt still means you don't think it's true on some level. The main distinction here, which you haven't addressed, is that Coulter and Hannity have no valid basis for doubting this story . They have no reason to suggest even the possibility of it being false, outside avoiding their own embarrassment. In tandem with the Mary Mapes comment (for which I also would like to see some other explanation) you simply can't build any sort of case that Hannity and Coulter weren't saying the story was false.
So yes, if your argument is the phrase doesn't always mean calling the person a liar with 100% certainty, you are correct. In this case, however, you have to ignore the context of the remark and pretend that either Hannity or Coulter are able and willing to be convinced of such a thing to make such an argument. It simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
brabantino wrote: "The main distinction here, which you haven't addressed, is that Coulter and Hannity have no valid basis for doubting this story . They have no reason to suggest even the possibility of it being false, outside avoiding their own embarrassment."
I haven't addressed that because that was not part of my argument.
I'll stop trying to argue as if I know what they are thinking, but I believe you left out an option. Perhaps the reporter erred/mistated/exagerated/misconstrued/extrapolated/invented the story. (I'm not saying he has, just opining that could be another possibility you haven't included.)
I do agree that the disbelief of the story by Coulter and Hannity, could very well be in part that they are trying, as you just said, to avoid embarrassment.
"I haven't addressed that because that was not part of my argument."
I didn't say it was, it was an important part of my argument that needed to be addressed in order to support your original comments.
"Perhaps the reporter erred/mistated/exagerated/misconstrued/extrapolated/invented the story."
I didn't leave it out as such, because that is always a possibility and it simply doesn't help your case here. Again, they have no reason to jump to that conclusion, or even to have that possibility leap to the forefront of their minds so quickly. And if they did believe that was they case, then you can't very well argue that they weren't saying the story was false! That was your point I took issue with to begin with, as you should remember, that just because they said "I don't believe it" it didn't mean they were saying the story was false.
"I do agree that the disbelief of the story by Coulter and Hannity, could very well be in part that they are trying, as you just said, to avoid embarrassment."
For Coulter I think it's obvious;she clearly painted herself into a corner, and between the options of retracting one of her statements or questioning the validity of the story I don't think anyone is surprised at her choice (if in fact that choice even consciously occured to her). Hannity would probably follow her lead in any event. But, they may honestly believe that a liberal can't serve their country. Either way the comment is hard to defend.
While I appreciate the kudos you gave to my argument, I might have appreciated it even more if you had awarded the credit correctly. If you'll look more closely, you'll find that my name is Bluestocking -- not Blueblood.
Bluestocking,
Is my face red! Sorry for mis-identifying you're contribution in my earlier post.
"Coulter and Hannity are simply opining that they require more proof before they believe. Simple as that."
I should also add, why do they need more proof (as if the testimony of friends and family is not credible)? Why is it so hard to believe that someone who sacrifices for their country is not a Bush fan? Perhaps if you reflect on that question, and their incredulity at the concept, you will start to see what was so reprehensible about their comments.
aa, Coulter is not looking for more proof. Her Mapes-Rather snipe pretty clearly implies her belief that the story about Tillman's positions about Bush and the Iraq war is false. This is why she does not retract her kind words about Tillman. Her expedient denial allows her to avoid the need to reconcile her words about someone who is not necessarily liberal but holds at least some views that would be perceived by persons on both sides of the aisle as being strongly liberal. Ultimately she is bending over backwards (probably not a bad look for her) to dodge acknowledging the undeniable fact that liberals as well as conservatives are giving their lives for this farce of a war in Iraq. In her world liberals' participation in the war is limited to their treasonous, vocal opposition to it.
When I read this article on Sunday I hoped that the planets would align and someone--anyone--in the media would have the opportunity, the attention span, and the nuggets to corner Ms. Coulter on this issue. Never in a million years would I have put money on Colmes to be the one to do the deed. My hat's off to him, a rare zinger on his part.
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic but I don't quite understand anotheramerican's logic here. John Kerry did release his military records - they are available at www.johnkerry.com (and also at: [link to www.awolbush.com]
So, what is it about Kerry's statement that makes you not believe him?
Ann Coulter certainly has a right to her opinion, but if her opinion is based on nothing more than ideology, I'd say it is worthless. Personally, I'm much more inclined to believe Pat Tillman's mother than Ann Coulter. Plato
"Coulter and Hannity are simply opining that they require more proof before they believe. Simple as that." -- anotheramerican
With all due respect...your argument might hold more water if either Coulter or Hannity typically showed themselves to be the sort of person who maintains an open mind and tries to withhold judgment until they have more information. However, if their public personas are anything to go by, this is emphatically not the case -- rather the reverse, in fact! Neither Coulter nor Hannity is the kind of person who readily or willingly concedes a point –- instead, both seem to demonstrate a decided inclination to ignore or dismiss or discredit any information which conflicts with the conclusion that they’ve already drawn. There are people who are utterly determined to be “right”, to the point that they'll cling doggedly to their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary –- and frankly, I'm quite a bit less sanguine than you are that anything short of hearing it from Pat Tillman's own mouth (which is of course impossible) would be sufficient to convince either Coulter or Hannity that Tillman might have been a Chomsky fan. They're entitled to believe whatever they like, of course -- but just because they refuse to aceept it doesn't automatically mean that it might not be true!
I don't remember Ann the Man asking for more evidence before she called Clinton a rapist.
Ok, so they just don't believe Tillman's own mother. Well that clears things up. That's much more acceptable. Wha'?
How come Hannity needs Coulter there to double-team Colmes?
You'd think a far-right Hannity and a moderate Colmes would occasionally bring in a far-left person to "balance" things out. Instead they bring on an even farther-right extremist?
Deep Zen Question of the Day:
If Ann Coulter spouts her raging inferno of lunatic gabbling in a forest and nobody's there to hear her, do the squirrels tell her to shut up?
"If Ann Coulter spouts her raging inferno of lunatic gabbling in a forest and nobody's there to hear her, do the squirrels tell her to shut up?"
No, because the squirrels love her;they think she's nuts.
Terrible, I know, but I just couldn't resist.
Thank you, I was hoping someone would say what you said. Too easy really.
How many times have Republicans claimed the ability to speak for dead people they didn't even know?
Glick
Schiavo
Tillman
It's ghoulish.
"How many times have Republicans claimed the ability to speak for dead people they didn't even know? Glick Schiavo Tillman"
Sheehan!
Right. I forgot Casey Sheehan!
Interesting. I'm an Arizona resident and ASU and Cardinals fan. Greatly admired Tillman as a tough, stand-up football player and as a man. How DARE the Republicans use his name to trumpet their BS agenda.
Tillman may have been a great football player, and he decided to serve his country for which he should be commended-posthumously . Who cares what his political leanings were? It goes to show how lockstep, and "us versus them" part of the GOP/conservative ideology has become.
This spawn of a "human being" DARES to speak out against the mother of Mr. Tillman. As the right speaks of hate the left must rise above. She will get whats coming to her. If not now than when she goes to the Pearly Gates. She knows no shame and I can only hope she never has a child of her own! God she is disgusting.
Actually, it would serve her right to have a child of her own - especially if that child were to demonstrate similar traits... I wonder what her parents think of the hate and venom that their offspring is spewing in public? Karmic justice happens - it just takes it's own sweet time.
You know what they say -- the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Some of her biographical details seem to suggest that she may have obtained at least some of this mentality at her parent's knee -- Coulter's father was a lawyer, and she reportedly takes pride in the fact that he was a union buster. Not exactly the sort of occupation which would lend itself well to being tolerant for other people's perspective, one feels...!
So, it appears that Insanity and Aryan Annie are calling Tillman's mother a liar. How holy of them. :-(
Both Coulter and Hannity seem to be under the same misapprehension which seems all too common among many conservatives these days -- the idea that belief is equivalent with fact or truth. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt! The fact that Tillman might be a fan of Chomsky just doesn't fit with the image that Coulter and Hannity want to have of him -- they might not want to believe it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it might not be true. Coulter seems to idolize Tillman not only as a patriotic hero but as a sex symbol or romantic idol ("virtuous, pure, and masculine like only an American male can be") -- it's not too hard to see that something like this, if proven true, could really burst her bubble.
how could anyone take coulter seriously? she's a parody of neocon conservatism. a joke.
What the heck is she on? She acts postively goofy. She was on CNN-Larry King on 9/28 and I couldn't stomach her for three minutes. She is ruder than ever.
I would like to ask Hannity and Coulter if they believe the earth is flat or round. These are people who seem to have a problem with facts, which in this case are pretty well established.
I find it extremely fascinating that Tillman's journal "disappeared" after his death. Very, very strange.
While I think it is a complete waste of time to speculate about what someone may or may not have believed after their death, I commend Pat Tillman if he was a complete, raging liberal. At least he understood his duty to his country, to the oath that he took, and to his fellow citizens, if indeed he was a liberal. We'll never know, will we?
"I commend Pat Tillman if he was a complete, raging liberal. At least he understood his duty to his country,"
I'm sure this isn't am attempt at smearing the rest of liberals is it? You're not trying to imply here that most other libs don't have any sense of duty to their country, right?
I'm sure this isn't am attempt at smearing the rest of liberals is it? You're not trying to imply here that most other libs don't have any sense of duty to their country, right?
by losingfaith - Friday September 30, 2005 12:06:01 PM EST -
I'm merely saying that I applaud him for recognizing his clear duty. His job as a soldier was not to make or question policy, or strategy. His job was to follow the orders of his commander and to put the best interests of his country before his personal beliefs, if indeed they were his beliefs. If that causes you to look inward, I would suggest that is something only you can work out.
"His job was to follow the orders of his commander and to put the best interests of his country before his personal beliefs, if indeed they were his beliefs."
Since we know his beliefs on Iraq are now established, we can safely say he didn't agree with the president on invading the country, he wanted to go after the people who did attack the U.S. on 9-11. Which was the reason he joined in the first place.Unless, of course, you think the people quoted in the article are lying or making it up for some reason.
What is the real point anyway in Tillman's political leanings? Not all soldiers are Republican, or agree with the choices of their commanders - that is not the point. The point is that Tillman was a good soldier, a hero, who died defending this country. All people who volunteer for military service don't sign some paper saying if they disagree with some military action, they will be excused. Or just because they didn't vote for the current Commander in Chief, this somehow makes it right or wrong - they go because they are patriots and want to serve.
How bad can it be to lose your son in a war and then have to listen to people like Ann Coulter talk about him as if she really knew him? I think it's time for Ann Coulter to get off the studio a chair and fight wars herself!! Wasn't she the same pundit who said to a disable vietnam vet "Your the reason we lost the war" ?
Fact: If America was filled with Ann Coulter's it would have never won a war are even fought in one becuase people like Ann Coulter never fight in wars. NEVER
I beg you, please quit recognizing Ann Coulter. Do not give her any more press. Forget her, leave her alone. She is crazy. If she is ignored, maybe she will fade away, and we will never have to hear from her again.
Join the Bandwagon! Forget her name!
Who are you talking about?
In case others haven't read it, Coulter comes down pretty hard on Bush in her latest column.
--------------------
Just read the column. It only shows Ann for the ultra-right wing hack she is. The only critic of Bush and Rove is somehow that they are not right-wing enough. Hardly funny more sickening. If there is anything we don't need is more reich-wing rhetoric. And yes her corpse worship of Reagan is eerie, to address another poster.