QandO

What's supposed to be wrong with Coulter's column other than that Coulter wrote it? What inaccurate about? Why shouldn't Coulter point out the actual circumstances in which Cleland lost his limbs especially given the way he's being used as a campaign prop all around the country?

Posted by: John Hawkins at February 13, 2004 04:59 PM

I'll submit that Ann Coulter is a hack, just like Krugman, Cohen, Ivins, etc., on the left. But to put her on the level of Rall is perhaps a bit much.

Rall is a TOTAL KOOK whose columns are filled with wholly unsupported conspiracy theories and talking points from Michael Moore's website. I'm still waiting for his many columns in 2001 claiming Bush ousted the Taliban to get his hands on a trans-Afghanistan oil pipeline to be proven true. I suspect it will show up right after the vaunted "Brutal Afghan Winter" finally proves too much for our military and we are forced to retreat in shame, as Rall predicted. (It's been two winters and counting).

I'd put Ann in Rall's category if this statement in her column is proven untrue:

"Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls 'weekend warriors.' "

Certainly, Ann is not known for making her points delicately. Indeed, she thrives on the cheap insult. However, if Cleland was indeed injured in an accident -- or even a blunder of his own unfortunate doing -- and not in a firefight, what is wrong with pointing that out? Especially when Cleland has, indeed, sneered about Bush's service in the National Guard. Yes, this is red meat, but it might not be a half-truth, Jon. It might be a full truth.

If Ann has her facts wrong, fire her. If she has her facts right, perhaps she should still be fired because one doesn't like her style. But she should not be fired for being a liar, like Rall, if she is not one.

Posted by: Jim Lakely at February 13, 2004 05:00 PM

I apologize for using "indeed" about 14 times in one paragraph. I'm kind of tired today.

Posted by: Jim Lakely at February 13, 2004 05:02 PM

I'm not sure why Coulter is "despicable." Assuming her sources are correct, and what she wrote is correct, I am confused as to why she creates so much tension.

Coulter writes:

"If we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam."

Coulter's broader point appears to be that Cleland ought not criticize and question Bush when Cleland apparently is living a lie and disseminating myths. The poor man had an accident with a grenade and I seriously sympathize for anyone who loses a limb. But if what Coulter says is true, *Cleland* is the despicable one for portraying himself to be a courageous super-soldier when the facts indicate otherwise.

Posted by: Mark at February 14, 2004 04:09 AM

John: For starters, there's nothing at all dishonest about saying that Cleland is a "triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam". He did, and for her to insinuate that this is dishonest is...dishonest. I don't care whether he lost those limbs to a Vietnamese grenade or a US grenade. He lost them in the line of duty.

I actually agree with some of the conclusions that Coulter reaches, but I think the way she gets there is despicable. She personifies the hyperbole that is ruining political discourse.

"Traitors"? "Treasonous"? That's WAY beyond the pale. WAY beyond. (Spinsanity has written good pieces on her lack of credibility, too)

Perhaps you're right, though. Perhaps Krugman would be a better analogy, but I've yet to see Krugman accuse *all* Republicans of betraying the country. Coulter routinely questions the character of people who disagree with her. I put her in the Rall category, because she's so far into the red meat. I'd agree that she's not the kook that Rall is, though.

Why do I dislike Coulter? Simple. I want intellectual honesty in my pundits. I want clear, convincing, honest arguments. She tosses those aside for cheap shots and hyperbole every chance she gets. She's an entertainer, not an intellectual.

Posted by: Jon Henke at February 14, 2004 09:22 AM

Ann Coulter is, indeed, despicable and an insult to honest, quality. TV journalism. Since she thinks she knows it all, she should be corrected when she's wrong, as in many of the above cases. Last night, October 9,2004, she said Priests won't allow Communion to John Kerry. She should be asked to publicly apologize to the same TV audience. The fact is the Archbishop at Kerry's Boston Diocese, Sean O'Malley, urged Catholic elected officials, who are for abortion, to voluntarily not receive Communion. But he has not banned Priests from giving it. This includes any elected official, be it Kerry or anyone else. In other words, it is a decision for the individual Priest to make. No where does it say that Kerry's Priest refused him Communion. This country, which is the most divided it has been in decades, will never be drawn together again with the likes of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.

Posted by: Sara Armstrong at October 10, 2004 01:45 PM