On Hardball, Coulter ran rampant with falsehoods
On the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, right-wing pundit and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter falsely claimed that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "was working with Al Qaeda's top agents" and expressed surprise that host Chris Matthews "did not know that Saddam had sent his top agents to work with top agents from Al Qaeda." Coulter later compared Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's relationship with the Taliban to Saddam's relationship with Al Qaeda, saying, "Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, too!" However, investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9-11 Commission found no evidence of an operational relationship between Saddam's regime and the terrorist organization. During her Hardball appearance, Coulter also falsely asserted that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech" and that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) accused "evangelicals" of "hijacking America" in a June 23 speech.
Contrary to Coulter's claim that Hussein "was working with Al Qaeda" and that he "sent his top agents to work with top agents from Al Qaeda," a September 8, 2006, Senate Intelligence Committee report noted that "[p]ostwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." The report further noted that "[p]ostwar information indicates there were three instances in which al-Qa'ida communicated with representatives of Saddam's regime." The committee cited a meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in 1995, in which the officer reportedly rebuffed the Al Qaeda leader's request for support. The committee also noted intelligence indicating that an Al Qaeda operative traveled to Iraq in 1998 and 2002 to request a meeting with Saddam, but was refused in both cases.
The 9-11 Commission similarly found "no evidence" that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda "developed into a collaborative operational relationship." Also, on April 5, the inspector general of the Defense Department declassified a report that reviewed the prewar intelligence-gathering activities conducted by the department's Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG), run by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith. The report noted that the PCTEG had released alternative intelligence assessments asserting that "Iraq has been complicit in supporting al-Qaida terrorist activities." The report went on to describe the office's intelligence handling as "inappropriate" and specifically rebutted its assertion of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. The report stated that "[t]he Intelligence Community discounted conclusions about the high degree of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida," adding in a footnote that it is "noteworthy" that the postwar debriefings of Saddam and other former high-ranking Iraqi government officials confirmed the intelligence community's assessment:
Noteworthy is that post-war debriefs of Saddam Hussein, [former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister] Tariq Aziz, [former Iraqi intelligence official Barzan Ibrahim Hasan] al-Tikriti, and [Al Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh] al-Libi as well as document exploitation by DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories. The terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida were validated, "no conclusive signs," and "direct cooperation ... has not been established."
Coulter's made her false claim after Matthews noted that "40 percent of Americans believe that it was Iraq, Saddam Hussein, who attacked us on 9-11" and asked, "Does that concern you, that people are misinformed?" However, while Matthews prefaced the discussion by describing those who believe Saddam was behind 9-11 as "misinformed," he did not correct Coulter's subsequent false assertion Saddam "was working with Al Qaeda's top agents." Matthews clearly knew that was the case, having noted the Defense Department inspector general's report on the April 6 edition of Hardball, during which he asserted, "It's official. Saddam was not allied with Al Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11."
Later on the June 26 edition of Hardball, Coulter falsely claimed that Edwards "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech." In fact, according to Edwards' personal financial disclosure for 2006, Edwards did not "charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech."
According to that disclosure, Edwards received the following fees for speaking in 2006:
- $35,000 from the Hunter College Foundation Inc., City University of New York
- $32,000 from the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan
- $12,000 from the Gonzaga University Law School
- $32,000 from the International Housewares Association
- $16,000 from Mount Union College
- $32,000 from Regberg and Associates Inc.
- $40,000 from the Stanford in Government Public Policy Forum
- $32,000 from the Stanford Washington Research Group
- $44,000 from the University of California, Davis, Mondavi Center
- $40,000 from the University of Judaism
- $40,000 from the University of Texas-Pan American Foundation
- $40,000 from the Vanderbilt University Impact Series
- $20,000 from the Simmons School of Management Leadership Conference
Coulter was apparently distorting an earlier story about Edwards, noted by Media Matters for America, in which several media outlets reported that Edwards charged the University of California-Davis $55,000 for a January 2006 speech without noting that the cost was offset by ticket prices, according to the Edwards campaign.
Later in the program, Coulter falsely claimed that Obama "just gave this speech on evangelicals hijacking America." In fact, in the June 23 speech to which Coulter was apparently referring, Obama did not blame "evangelicals" for "hijacking America." Rather, he said "somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us." From the speech:
So doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that the separation of church and state in America means faith should have no role in public life. Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural without its reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's "I Have a Dream" speech without its reference to "all of God's children." Or President Kennedy's Inaugural without the words, "here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own." At each of these junctures, by summoning a higher truth and embracing a universal faith, our leaders inspired ordinary people to achieve extraordinary things.
But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us. At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design. There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich. I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version.
As Media Matters noted, on the June 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, in reference to the same speech, Coulter said, "I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using 'hijack' and 'religion' in the same sentence."
From the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: No, but 40 percent of Americans believe that it was Iraq, Saddam Hussein, who attacked us on 9-11. Does that concern you, that people are misinformed?
COULTER: No, but I think what -- well, yes --
MATTHEWS: It doesn't bother you?
COULTER: -- but --
MATTHEWS: That would explain why people supported --
COULTER: We do know --
MATTHEWS: -- the war.
COULTER: Look, I don't think that's a particularly good question. We also do know that Saddam --
MATTHEWS: It's the answer I'm asking if you're concerned about.
COULTER: Right. Well, this is why it's not a good question because we do know Saddam was working with Al Qaeda's top agents. That his intelligence agents --
MATTHEWS: OK, then you're right. Then the war --
COULTER: -- were working with them.
MATTHEWS: -- was well-founded because the war was based on WMD, on a threat from Iraq to us, and also posed on the idea that the terrorists are the people who attacked us on 9-11, and those are the people we attacked when we went to Iraq --
COULTER: We know --
MATTHEWS: -- then we're right in going to war.
COULTER: We know no single country attacked us because it was individual terrorists, and by the way, your team claims --
MATTHEWS: What team?
COULTER: -- to support the war in Afghanistan --
MATTHEWS: I'm just going by these poll questions.
COULTER: -- and Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9-11, either, Chris!
MATTHEWS: What -- but bin Laden did.
COULTER: Well, OK. He's not --
MATTHEWS: And bin Laden was --
COULTER: -- even a citizen of Afghanistan!
MATTHEWS: -- working with the Taliban. He was protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
COULTER: And -- and Al Qaeda was working with Saddam!
MATTHEWS: And that's why the American people supported the troops going into Afghanistan, and that's why, apparently --
COULTER: And we supported going into Iraq!
MATTHEWS: -- a good portion of the American people are still misinformed about why we went into Iraq.
COULTER: No, you're misinformed, including on the war you claim to support! Afghanistan did not attack us on 9-11! They were working with Al Qaeda!
MATTHEWS: Right.
COULTER: OK. Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, too!
MATTHEWS: He was?
COULTER: Yes! You --
MATTHEWS: Well, then, these people are right.
COULTER: If you did not know that Saddam --
MATTHEWS: No, this is great.
COULTER: -- had sent his top agents to work with top agents from Al Qaeda --
MATTHEWS: This is what I want to hear. We'll be right back with Ann Coulter. Thank you.
[...]
COULTER: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No.
MATTHEWS: No, she said you should stop being so negative to people individually.
COULTER: Right, as opposed to bankrupting doctors by giving a shyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries, based on science --
MATTHEWS: OK.
COULTER: Wait. You said I'd have as long as I would have --
MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.
COULTER: -- and you instantly interrupt me.
MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead.
COULTER: As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors, who now can't deliver babies, and to charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech. Don't talk to me about how to use language.
[...]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My candidate, [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL], he is a churchgoer. He's reaching out to the religious part of the country, and he wants to turn the page and he wants to be friends. So, how can you call him godless?
[laughter]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How can you call him godless?
COULTER: Well, he goes to kind of a crazy church where the minister praises [Libyan President Col. Muammar el-] Qaddafi and says we deserved 9-11. So, there are churches and churches, and, you know, he just gave this speech on --
MATTHEWS: OK.
COULTER: -- on evangelicals hijacking America, and I mean, it just seems to me, people are always saying you have to give up on abortion so the country will be united. Well, OK, how about you guys give up on abortion?
MATTHEWS: Ann Coulter, the name of the book is Godless. We have sold a lot of her books tonight. I don't know if I can go to confession fast enough.
Here's the beautiful part. Tweety is on today asking each of his guests, "Do you think Ann Coulter is wrong to say these things?".
Armstrong Williams was on and said that Elizabeth Edwards lowered herself to Coulterskank's level by calling in to talk to her, then suggested this was a stunt to improve their fund-raising right at the end of the reporting period.
Then, he said that Coulterskank is in her own little world, is irrelevant, and that nobody on the right pays any attention to her. A few minutes later, Tweety mentioned all her adoring fans in the background who were cheering every time she said something controversial and Williams replied that people just love her, and that she has a huge cult following. Wow, talk about talking out both sides of your mouth.
An excerpt from the book No Excuses by Robert Shrum
Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else.
Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again. When they did, Kerry tried to get a better personal feel for his potential number two; as rivals for national office since 2000, shortly after Edwards had entered the Senate, the two men hadn't spent a lot of time together. Kerry also wanted a specific reassurance. He asked Edwards for a commitment that if he was chosen and the ticket lost, Edwards wouldn't run against him in 2008. Edwards agreed "absolutely," as Kerry recalled him saying. If Kerry had shared this at the time, I would have told him what I did later: it was naive to think he could rely on a promise like that. Unlike Joe Lieberman, who'd been plucked from relative obscurity by Gore, Edwards had made his own mark in the primaries. He was ambitious—and if he saw his chance the next time, he was likely to go for it.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498-2,00.html
Ann nailed it
The e-mail is coupled with an appeal for campaign donations.
“Please give what you can right now to help raise the dialogue and show that Ann Coulter-style politics will never carry the day,” Mrs. Edwards wrote.
It is the second time in as many quarters that the Edwards campaign is using Coulter for a fundraising appeal. In March, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate raised “Coulter cash” after the right-wing pundit called the senator a “faaggot.”
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/edwards-camp-again-turns-to-cash-cow-coulter-2007-06-27.html
And this has WHAT to do with Gangleskank Coulter lying AGAIN? Oh wait now I see the sign. Troll work, subject change attempt inevitable
she is a "bo bo" in the diapers of the universe
To blind to see that she was ,in a humorous way, telling the truth. You lefties can not see humor unless it has something to do with sex or a bowel movement.
What was the "truth" she was telling. 3 company?
Oh, but we are humorous. Take this, for instance:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/28/ann-coulter-loses-it-on-_n_54129.html
I find her little whiney tantrum hilarious!
Wow, Snoopy, thanks for the link. That "woman" is really in another galaxy if she thinks that her critics are resisting "ideas".
I think she's got the same problem as Bush. A small group of sycophants helping her to remain completely removed from reality. What an oblivious immature crybaby.
BTW, Snoop, I encroached on your song parody terrain in another thread.
Oh, which one? I want to check the parody out!
If it was from the "sound of wingnuts" I love it!
Great parody.
The hills are indeed, alive with the sound of wingnuts. But not as many as we're used to.
Have you noticed that Tommy's (not that he's a wingnut) not the only one who seems to have vanished. RINO and AA seem to have turned to vapor too.
Thanks for the link Snoop.
What a whack job. So, she doesn't like defending what she's written.
Great, the answer is to stop writing. I'm not advocating silencing the skank. But if you write something down and put your name to it, you must defend it, or deny it and say you were wrong.
If she insists on inflicting her opinion on others then we should be free to inflict ours on her.
can we do like my mom did when I was younger and inflict it with a belt while kneeling?
That works for me!
Or how about rinsing her mouth out with soap?
Like when Coulter said the 9/11 widows were actually celebrating their husbands' deaths? Yes, because of our lacking sense of humor, we didn't laugh at that funny joke, either.
Sure if by telling the truth you mean LYING and if by humorous you mean any statement so ludicrous and outrageous we cant appologize for it any other way. It is obviously you rightwingers that not only dont have a sense of humor but dont even know what one IS. When you run out of excuses for a thing like Coulter you think it MUST be funny since you wouldnt know funny if it hit you upside the head. If someone has to accuse his audience of not having a sense of humor for not laughing at their meanspirited attacks its the material not the audience. It is especially weak in this venue since many of the liberals here are hilarious and are actually an object lesson for the denser of the wingnuts what a sense of humor is supposed to be.
Taz: You are soo right: Ann NAILED IT! Thank God for deep thinkers like Ann who can respond to anything with an attack against the speaker. Why when she completely changed the subject to talk about PI lawyers when Mrs. Edwards was talking to her I thought WOW! ANN NAILED IT again. And when she just completely makes stuff up like there was a connection between Al Queda and Hussein, I think WOW! THIS WOMAN IS BRILLIANT! Unfortunately, this MMFA site keeps bringing up pesky facts, which may seem to show that Coulter is just a big mouth, lying shrill, but thanks to people like you, things like facts are overrated anyway. Keep up the good work Taz. Remember, facts are for losers. You just keep on ignoring them like you've been doing.
Thank you Mark, I was about to ask Taz what was his point. I realize he had not point.
But Mark, he has paraphrased conversations between Edwards and Kerry from a 3rd party !
You "factys" are sooo picky.
I once overheard a man talking about a conversation he had with someone about Ann Coulter claiming Ann had in fact no brain. None. Not a sign of the old gray matter.
So, there you have it. Irrefutable proof that Ann Coulter is brainless.
Randy
To quote Colbert: "Facts have a decidely liberal bias."
It is, in fact, Coulter --the one who started this-- who is using Edwards.
Using Edwards to increase her own personal wealth. (Coulter is not exactly what is called a charitable, philanthropic person.)
Coulter doesn't care. Doesn't care what pours out of her mouth, as long as cash pours into her bank account.
In addition to using Edwards, she is using YOU. In her eyes, you're a sucker.
You mean Armstrong "On The Down Low" Williams? LOL!
All this is about is ratings. Tweety doesn't care if he gives a hatemonger like mAnn a forum, just as long as the viewership is up. You roll around with pigs...
Ann Coulter is the Paris Hilton of punditry. Hyperbole and outrageousness are her calling card. Like Paris her tongue is her best known asset. Ms. Coulter uses her tongue to publicly flagellate those might disagree with her on any number of issues. Just like Paris a cogent, reasoned thought has not been uttered through her lips.
MMFA Blooper
The title is "On Hardball, Coulter Ran Rampant With Falsehoods", which is about how Chris Matthews of MSNBC sandbagged Ann Coulter with a prearranged call from John Edwards' wife.
But the video is Dick Morris talking with Sean and Alan on Fox about illegal immigrants.
Either there is a connection I cannot fathom or somebody is sleepwalking at MMFA today.
One minor issue here. Nobody sandbagged Coulter. I saw an interview just a while ago with the "Hardball" producer. She claims Coulter was informed BEFORE the show that Mrs. Edwards might call in on the show. The call came during the show's third segment, plenty of time for the Slag Queen to prepare her BS replies.
BTW, what a bunch of lamea$$ comebacks. Mrs. Edwards charged her with making specific comments and Coulterslag replied with "That was 6 months ago". Another time it was "Three years ago". Can someone explain to me how that mitigates the content of her comments. Is there a statute of limitations on stupid?
Yes, that same point occurred to me. "That was three years ago." So? Did you ever apologize for it? (Ha!) Then the lapse of time is irrelevant. The only thing it shows--not that proof was needed--is that Coulter has been making inflammatory personal attacks for years.
Ah, but there is some hope out there. The throng of young Republicans behind her actually cheered for Mrs. Edwards when she politely requested raising, not lowering, the level of political dialog. Sure, they clapped like mechanical monkeys for Coulter at times, but they showed that they have at least some level of conscience.
If Coulter was forwarned, then I take back the sandbag comment.
Correction: forewarned
That's all you got?
Pearlene:
Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? What do you expect me to "have"?
Something more than pointing out the video mistake with the article which was corrected.
Something more than worrying poor Annie was sandbagged by Matthews.
I thought maybe you would have something to say regarding all of the "jokes" that Annie & Co. seem to find soooo funny like:
"These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever - and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA? This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest."
Or
Coulter on Muslims:
"I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" (This declaration prompted a boisterous ovation.)
Pearlene:
I have one full-time job, and that is enough.
I let others with much more time on their hands get into discussions about what Ann Coulter says. She is intentionally provocative, apparently makes a good living at it, and also serves as a useful fundraising tool (fool?) for some of her opportunistic political opponents.
BTW, MMFA has corrected the video at the time I am writing, 1 pm Central on Thursday.
Are you on a lunch break from your full-time job? Me, I'm stealing time from my conservative boss.
Yup, the last post was at the end of my lunch break. This one is during my mid-afternoon ice water break, ~3:15 Central DAYLIGHT Time. (For other techies out there, yeah, the MMFA clock is wrong, says EST, really EDT this time of year)
They could both use an exorcist.
That's ironic. An exorcist for the Coultergeist.
Coulter is scum
The kind of debater who will tell any lie, leave no insult unturned to win over an audience or at least slime her opponent. Facts and truth are of no importance (except when they get in her way); ideology and deception are the rule. Then when you get caught lying, shift ground and attack.
I think the C crossed a line with the remarks about the dead son and Mrs. Edwards handled herself with class. I am reminded of the McCarthy hearings and the "have you no shame?" line that was crucial in ending McCarthy's reign of terror. This is going to resonate like that did. I believe it will come back to haunt her.
JSOTT.
Armstrong Williams comes on AirAmerica here in the morning,this guy is so unbeleivable in his thinking that he is truley aggrivating to listen to.
In my opinion he can't vouch for anyone.As far as coulter is concerned I think people are finally waking up this garbage,but she still has her network enablers as we all see.
Coulter called in on "Morning Joe" this morning, and was whining about constantly having to defend what she writes. My heart bleeds for this millionaire skag who has made a fortune telling lies and insulting people.
Joe Scarborough, trying to be moderate, berated the "nuts" on both the right and the left, and said that if you insist on hating Ann, at least listen to what she has to say and hate her for the right reasons. Well, Joe...I did, and I do.
I saw this as well and Joe was just making excuses for her and lamely attempting to draw comparisons between Ann and Bill Maher. Maher has occasions of pushing the bar, but there is no bar with Coulter. He also kept pushing the BS that the mainstream media are showing Coulter clips out of context. The truth is the woman has no equal on the right or left. She reigns supreme in her own little world of hate and nastiness and her subjects just adore her. The women is so full of hate, you can see it oozing from her pores. It also doesn’t serve Conservatives like Scarborough well to keep defending this woman’s behavior. Joe tried to give Ann a chance to defend herself this morning and the truth is she was so angered and crazed on Joe’s show that it probably made it worse. I certainly hope she doesn’t have a cache of weapons somewhere. She might just start firing rounds out of luxurious NYC condo.
It was interesting to watch...I think Joe actually became a little irritated when she kept interrupting him with her little tirade about how mistreated she is. "Waaaaaaaa. I've made millions selling books and columns that are 99% fabricated, and now the mean old liberals are making me explain what I really meant." GMAFB
Actually, I enjoy seeing her catch a little flak for all the crap she dishes out. As far as I'm concerned, it's about 10 years too late.
NEWS FLASH TO MS. COULTER: The reason you have to keep defending what you write is because you ignore logic and facts. When you write the kind of insipid crap that you write, you should expect to have to constantly defend it. If you're tired of having to defend your lies and propaganda, there's a job waiting for you at the Waffle House.
I had hoped Ann Coulter would have burned herself out with the public because of her constant hate mongering. But I see it starts all over again. I see the young people in the background that Ann would happily trash due to their appearance, politics, etc. and these appear to be her fans. I wonder looking at these nerdy looking kids how they felt growing up being called all kinds of harmful, hateful names just because they were not popular, pretty, thin enough, rich enough, smart enough, etc. Then they participate in the hate spewed from Coulters mouth based on the politicians looks, names, or personal tragedies.
Isn't that just the irony of what that whole facade can double deal and exploit...there was a picture in the paper of a crowd mobbing Bush like he was their saint--the story was about his disappearing wrist watch. So the public gets the impression there still are Jim Jones cults out there the CIA is drugging and torturing with ultrasonics to be worshipful of an evil abomination in our time.
Of course captive television audiences are known to be bought and paid for, nothing the media misrepresents can be taken at screen-face value. You can always hustle up some gleeful attendees with a roll of cash.
Don't be fooled by the paid for throngs of devotees, the whole thing is a soundstage production and Ann Coulter is its prima'donna'rina. Hare-brain(s) today, gone tomorrow.
The title of the witch's book is just her self description, her and her hypocrite front of money grubbing, blood-sucking termite republicans. They know how unpopular they are and that they represent nothing. The media inflicts them on the public for more sado masochism, she's also been useful for blurting out the 'gay' prompt, as other sources have tried to intimidate and demean male identity in America (like the asinine movie 'Brokeback Mountain'). She's a crass nuissance-value symbol of chauvinism, of nothing more sophisticated than everything else put out there to deflect attention from the lies and deceit. Simply posturing a pundit in opposition to moral conscientious majority preference doesn't satisfy qualification in itself, you can't put a bozo like her out there who will say absolutely anything--baseless impertinence, inaccuracy, a hatchet job hack-writer and failed lawyer. Nobody is interested in her bullying or evasive tactics, it isn't relevant, persuasive or on the whole, a topic-personality for discussion.
Media distorts with these buffoons just like Jerry Springer did on his show. That's Ann Coulter's arena, The Jerry Spinger Show, where someone can retaliate by breaking a chair over someone's head, it isn't a level of depravity for any serious public discourse. She's a post-tense, finished aberration of the sado-media forcing function, a crude dominatrix with essentially nothing to say than hurl epithets. Maybe World Federation Wrestling would be more suited to her impoverished harranging, low mentality or inability to serviously investigate, report or put together the circumstantial complexities with any consistency. On purpose, she lacks these attributes or inhibits them automatically out of the role she's been propped up to perform. Going to law school only trains these schlepps to put on a persona for telling lies with more overbearing conviction. They are greedy slobs of ill repute and no intrinsic worth or redeemable value, what throwing around pious imprecations in book titles cannot fool and cannot change. They don't care how many people hit the concrete or how often-- That's Ann Coulter in a Westlaw Nutshell, and they'll say anything or act in any manner to make it look like something it isn't.
I don't think much more can be saddled-up in her regard......except that for her and possibly like all others who may have resistance to veterinary pharmaceuticals who can gloat with the audacity to carp: "Girlyman!" Snide arrogance from the dumb beast is not the thinking person's America and not their selection from the media.