News & Politics - Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows

Lexis · 06-09-2006, 03:52 AM

I was going to leave this story alone - Coulter is hardly known for her rational, compassionate opinions - but then I read about the slew of other media figures and politicos that were defending her. I'm sorry but I can't believe that she reflects America's opinions on this.

In case you haven't heard about the drama, it started when Coulter appeared on the Today Show and the host challenged her on some of the things she said in her new book about a group of 9/11 widows.

Quote:

When their husbands were killed on 9/11, four New Jersey widows tried to find out why - and now no-holds-barred conservative pundit Ann Coulter is mercilessly denouncing them as "witches."
"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in her new book.

Her brutal words were challenged yesterday on national television by "Today" host Matt Lauer - and she was slammed by the widows she derided as self-absorbed, limelight-seeking "harpies."

"I'd like her to meet my daughter and tell her how anyone could enjoy their father's death," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four widows known as the "Jersey Girls."

"She sounds like a very disturbed, unraveled person," added Breitweiser.

In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," the uncompromisingly right-wing Coulter writes the Jersey Girls have no right to criticize President Bush or any of the failures that led to the terror attacks.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," Coulter writes.

Quote:

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . .

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-358034c.html

Since they are pushing for more tighter security around the nation, I think the Jersey Girls are totally aware that 9/11 was an attack on the nation. They know what its like to loose someone you care about in these circumstances and are trying to stop it happenning to other people.

The widows responded with this statement:

Quote:

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens.

Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.

1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.

4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.

5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.

6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.

7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.

8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

-- September 11th Advocates

Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1002648990

And now, media figures are actually joining Coulter in her attack on these women. You can see clips and read transcripts here but I'm gonna pick out the ones that paticularly horrified me.

Quote:

Rios echoed Coulter's attacks on 9-11 widows, claiming incomprehensibly that just because they "lost their husbands in an accidental bombing [emphasis added]" that "does not give them license to then criticize the commander in chief." Rios also stated that "we're living in a time where a lot of people enjoy the death of their loved ones" and that "people are making a lot of money off the death of their loved ones," calling this "a culture that probably needs to be exposed."

Quote:

[Jack Burkman] further argued that Osama bin Laden is "shocked" and "amazed" because of "what these women have done and others have done with 9-11, they have commercialized him." Burkman later added that "because of this PC thing," the 9-11 widows "get away with it."

So, what do you guys think? I think by the tone of this post, you can probably guess what my opinon is.

TokyoNiGHTS · 06-09-2006, 04:51 AM

What people like Coulter and this Rios person don't stop the realise is that maybe, just maybe these women are question the Bush admisntration and trying to get light pushed back onto national security concerns (instead of gay marriage) so that other women, and other families in general don't have to go through the pain they've gone through over this. Not everyone is so greedy that all they can think about is themself or the party they might be part of. These women might have done some things to be criticized, i'm not sure, but trying to get the country focused on national security concerns? Is that something we should be criticizing people for wanting there to be a focus on?

And the money issue, they're acting like these women are swimming in money and how everything is fine. Yah sure they've probably got a decent amount of money now, but considering alot of them were probably stay at home moms and they lost their husbands which would leave them with no income its deserved. But i'd imagine if they were given the choice between having their husbands back or having that money that they wouldn't hesitate to get their husbands back.

The Playboy/divorve thing is another issue altogether. It just goes to show how far people will go to defend the party they're in. These women have done nothing specifically to Coulter, but because they've criticized Bush they somehow deserve to be treated like this.

All this could end her career (or in some strange way make it stronger). Networks need to bring up some of the other stuff she's said, specifically about New York. If people really want to see someone who truly seems to be un American, Coulter is that person.

UnsilentMajorty · 06-09-2006, 06:42 AM

Coulter is a media figure and knows how to get ratings and people to read her books -- Which is to create controversy and take the extreme approach on certain issues -- But she is insane if she really believes half the garbageshe spews out on a regular basis. She is the most offensive, un-American person on the face of the Earth and is nothing but a media whore herself (how is that for irony?).

....

Those who listen to Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh Joe Scarborough and others are the kind of persons I talked about in another thread who want to be ruled by a Facist-like government and what the U.S. to rule the world the same way.

These people are more loyal to an idea, political party/ideologoy, or themselves (in a selfish way) than any true American ideals or what this country was originally founded on and what some of our grandparents and forefathers fought and died for.

It really makes me sick that while this country may be a lot better than other countries as far as individual freedoms...

It is slowly is becoming the most hated country in the world for precisely the "values" Ann Coulter and others like to proclaim the U.S. stands for. In addition, in the process of becoming the most hated this country is slowly becoming a third-world country where there is a greater divide between the super wealthy elite and the rest of the population and it is comments like Ann Coulter's that perpetuate this this inter-class warfare to take the focus off what is really important in this country and its future.

ceilirose · 06-09-2006, 08:28 AM

Coulter is an act, pure and simple. She and her publicist, marketing people, etc. got exactly what they wanted. She spewed her usual venom and got her name and her book on front pages/television screens around the country. As the saying goes - she's laughing all the way to the bank.

Having said that I know it's hard to ignore such ignorant, hateful statements. I know that the usual suspects at Fox News defended her but they have their own agenda to promote as well.

The best (or worst) part of this story for me is that she explained that she was a Christian and as a Christian she had to speak out when she thought something was wrong. She said it all with a straight face too. Amazing that she's even taken seriously by the media in this country. More amazing is that people actually spend their money on her books. I'd say her books were more appropriate for picking up after my dog on her walks.

Lexis · 06-09-2006, 10:41 AM

I just find it so hard to imagine the mind of someone who is willing to pounce on widows who literally saw the last moments of their husband's life on the news. I mean, how could anyone do this, regardless of the financial reward?

Ms Carolyn · 06-09-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty

Coulter is a media figure and knows how to get ratings and people to read her books -- Which is to create controversy and take the extreme approach on certain issues -- But she is insane if she really believes half the garbageshe spews out on a regular basis. She is the most offensive, un-American person on the face of the Earth and is nothing but a media whore herself (how is that for irony?).

You got that right!!!

AuburnGrad · 06-09-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose

More amazing is that people actually spend their money on her books. I'd say her books were more appropriate for picking up after my dog on her walks.

And this is what disturbs me even more than Coulter's comments, which I found deplorable. The fact that she has an actual audience of Americans who agrees even somewhat with her vile hate is very disturbing to me.

BearDogg-X · 06-09-2006, 07:36 PM

When Bill O'Reilly criticizes you, saying "Stop Ann Coulter Before She Bombs Again!", you know you're in trouble:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198687,00.html

Quote:

Take a look at the cover of The New York Daily News today, huge publicity. Ann Coulter's publisher is dancing down the street. The controversy is all about Ann writing that four 9/11 widows are liberal pawns and are craven.

Says Coulter, "these broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

Now many conservatives have joined liberals in condemning Coulter's words, but not all. On "The Radio Factor," some callers supported Ann. Talking Points believes most Americans reject that kind of vitriol because it is mean and counterproductive.

The question then becomes, why does Ann Coulter do it? No doubt the publicity will sell her some books, but she is already well off and famous.

No doubt the widows have become liberal activists. They replied to Ms. Coulter today on a far left blog. But as Americans, they have a right to take any political position they want. No doubt some far-left pundits have said far worse things than Ann Coulter will ever say and the mainstream media often celebrates them. But a no-spin rule is that you don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Three years ago I chastised Ann Coulter for the personal stuff:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: You basically are doing somewhat what the left wing bomb- throwers are doing. You demonize --

COULTER: No.

O'REILLY: Oh, come on, Jimmy Carter, quote, "self-righteous, vengeful, sneaky and back-stabbing." Jimmy Carter.

COULTER: Read the full sentence. It's so much better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

From that clip you get the impression Ms. Coulter enjoys the personal attack and that may be true. But once you get down to that level, you often lose the point. And Coulter's point on the widows is interesting. She believes the far left uses people like the widows to attack President Bush and conservatives because grieving people are hard to challenge.

Now, I ran into that exact situation last January on the Letterman program when Cindy Sheehan name came up:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: The soldiers and Marines are noble. They are not terrorists and when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents freedom fighters, we don't like that.

DAVID LETTERMAN: I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan, honest to Christ.

O'REILLY: I'm sorry, no way a terrorist who blows up women and children are going to be called freedom fighter on my program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Now you may remember Ms. Sheehan telling CBS News reporter Mark Knoller that the terrorists in Iraq were freedom fighters. My point was that Sheehan's description injured the families of U.S. service people killed and hurt by those savages and the far-left activists, Ms. Sheehan, needs to be called on that, even if she did lose a son in Iraq.

Now if I had used a personal attack against Ms. Sheehan, which I did not, my point would not have been as persuasive, I believe. So if Ann Coulter is trying to persuade people to her view, the personal attacks are foolish. If she just wants to sing her choir a song, well, you can make money doing that.

I believe that in the end those standing on the high ground will win the culture war. The vicious fighter often loses to the smarter fighter.

WalkingOnSunshine · 06-13-2006, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis

So, what do you guys think? I think by the tone of this post, you can probably guess what my opinon is.

I think the mass hysteria over her comments is the exact thing she is trying to expose. It is looked at like Ann is bullying these women by calling them out when the exact opposite is happening. On numerous shows, she has stated that the Left has had a habit of putting forth victims to get their political message across. So, when the Right goes to respond - simply they can't. They (on the Right) are criticized for attacking someone who has a lost a child in the war (i.e. Cindy Sheehan) or for attacking a war vet (i.e. Murtha) and the list of victims goes on. It is a simple point - once these victims choose to enter the political arena with political agendas then basically they should stop being viewed as victims. And, when the opposite side responds to them it shouldn't be viewed as an "attack".

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty

It is slowly is becoming the most hated country in the world for precisely the "values" Ann Coulter and others like to proclaim the U.S. stands for. In addition, in the process of becoming the most hated this country is slowly becoming a third-world country where there is a greater divide between the super wealthy elite and the rest of the population and it is comments like Ann Coulter's that perpetuate this this inter-class warfare to take the focus off what is really important in this country and its future.

So the US is slowly becoming a third-world country? Funny, I thought things were going pretty well in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis

I just find it so hard to imagine the mind of someone who is willing to pounce on widows who literally saw the last moments of their husband's life on the news. I mean, how could anyone do this, regardless of the financial reward?

Take away the financial reward - I don't believe that is what we should be talking about in regards to this anyway. It is the fact that the Left constantly puts victims on the stage to get their message across. You have these widows cutting ads for the Presidental run for Kerry saying that Bush didn't do anything at all and that Sec. of State Rice is responsible for their husband's deaths. Why is it neccessary to put these women - these victims - on to get your political message across? Oh, that's right - because it is practically impossible for the other side to respond without being labeled "cruel" or "heartless" for responding to these people who have entered the political debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuburnGrad

And this is what disturbs me even more than Coulter's comments, which I found deplorable. The fact that she has an actual audience of Americans who agrees even somewhat with her vile hate is very disturbing to me.

"Her vile hate" is that in reference to the chapter on the four 9/11 widows? It seems to me the main point is being missed here. Which is that these widows joined the political debate when they choose to support Kerry & run ads defaming Bush & the adminstration. The fact is that the Left constantly uses victims to get their message across instead of letting the DNC head actually do his job & get the message across. It would be a lot easier & less controversial if Coulter, or any subject on the Right, simply had to respond to Dean instead of being labeled as "vicious" for finally making remarks about these 4 women.

ceilirose · 06-13-2006, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WalkingOnSunshine

It is the fact that the Left constantly puts victims on the stage to get their message across. You have these widows cutting ads for the Presidental run for Kerry saying that Bush didn't do anything at all and that Sec. of State Rice is responsible for their husband's deaths. Why is it neccessary to put these women - these victims - on to get your political message across? Oh, that's right - because it is practically impossible for the other side to respond without being labeled "cruel" or "heartless" for responding to these people who have entered the political debate.

One of Bush's first ads for re-election in '04 was showing a flag draped coffin being taken out of the 9/11 rubble. The RNC had their convention in NYC (a bastion of conservatism if there ever was) pretty darn close to the anniversary of 9/11. 9/11 family members were at that convention and have gone on record as supporting Bush. That picture of him hugging a daughter of a 9/11 victim during the campaign got wide play. One night at that convention every third sentence mentioned 9/11.

Whose using victims to get their point across again? Whose using them for political gain? Certainly not the Republicans and Bush. No way.

There's no hysteria regarding Coulter. Ever since she referred to the Japanese as "savage Oriental beasts" in her homage to Sen. Joseph McCarthy and called Helen Thomas an "old Arab" she been rightly called out in many quarters for the idiot that she is. She's just getting a taste of her own medicine and from what I've heard she's crying victim herself now. I'll give her credit though - she's a master manipulator and knows how to work the media. It's just sad that it's all entirely done to fatten her bank accounts.

Quote:

It would be a lot easier & less controversial if Coulter, or any subject on the Right, simply had to respond to Dean instead of being labeled as "vicious" for finally making remarks about these 4 women.

Her comments about those widows and any other number of her comments are vicious - plain and simple. She makes controversial, inflammatory statements and then she and her supporters decry being called names themselves and treated in the same way she labels her adversaries.

Coulter called these women "witches" and "harpies" and hinted that their husbands were going to divorce them prior to 9/11. How she knew that is beyond me but let's move on. She's chosen her way to get her point across. Others are simply calling her out on her comments and responding in kind.

Complaining about her treatment is a little ironic since she's the poster woman for controversial behavior herself.

But on a completely superficial note - when she constantly runs her hands through her hair and does her head toss..what's the deal? Is that supposed to make her attractive or something? Also for all the money she makes she really needs to get a better hair colorist/stylist.

TokyoNiGHTS · 06-14-2006, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose

One of Bush's first ads for re-election in '04 was showing a flag draped coffin being taken out of the 9/11 rubble. The RNC had their convention in NYC (a bastion of conservatism if there ever was) pretty darn close to the anniversary of 9/11. 9/11 family members were at that convention and have gone on record as supporting Bush. That picture of him hugging a daughter of a 9/11 victim during the campaign got wide play. One night at that convention every third sentence mentioned 9/11.

On Bush's re election campaign the Daily Show spliced together a bunch of footage of Bush and people helping him get re elected using 9/11 an amazing amount of times. I think both sides used it alot, and in reality it should've been. It's not really something you can ignore. But I think it's rather disgusting that it wasn't all that long ago that Republicans were using these victims and the event that really changed their life as a way to keep Bush in office, and now that they've got it they somehow feel they can attack them. I just hope everyone remembers this when the next election comes up, because it says alot. And if Giuliani is running, they should keep in mind that he didn't say anything about Coulters comments. Remember that because it shows that he's one of those people that puts his party before anything else.

Lexis · 06-14-2006, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WalkingOnSunshine

It is looked at like Ann is bullying these women by calling them out when the exact opposite is happening. On numerous shows, she has stated that the Left has had a habit of putting forth victims to get their political message across. So, when the Right goes to respond - simply they can't.

If you disagree with somebody's issue, criticise all the hell you want. If Coulter had been saying she thought that the 9/11 commission was a waste of time and money or said that she thought Sheehan couldn't see the wood for the trees in her grief, that's fine. Let her rip apart their opinion, challenge their statements. Its her right to do so.

My problem with her (and others like her) comes from the baseless, cruel tone. So she hints that maybe the husbands of the widows were planning to separate from them. She calls them harpies and witches, implies they enjoyed their husband's death and that money makes up for their terrible loss.

That's what gets me crazy - can you imagine the terrible pain of losing your husband in the WTC, only to be accused of getting a thrill from it?

Quote:

It is a simple point - once these victims choose to enter the political arena with political agendas then basically they should stop being viewed as victims. And, when the opposite side responds to them it shouldn't be viewed as an "attack".

I disagree. They could run for President and they will still be victims of that terrible day. How can they not? The fathers of their children were brutally murdered. But just because your suffered, it doesn't me you sit in the corner and cry. Respond to their points (border security for example) and criticise their opinions but don't make these wild accusations that to me are inhumane.

Quote:

It is the fact that the Left constantly puts victims on the stage to get their message across. You have these widows cutting ads for the Presidental run for Kerry saying that Bush didn't do anything at all and that Sec. of State Rice is responsible for their husband's deaths. Why is it neccessary to put these women - these victims - on to get your political message across? Oh, that's right - because it is practically impossible for the other side to respond without being labeled "cruel" or "heartless" for responding to these people who have entered the political debate.

No its not impossible to respond. As I said before, critcise the content of their words, correct what you think is untrue. But don't insult their grief and imply they are women who enjoyed their husbands death. Really, that's what bothers me.

Why is it necessary for people like Coulter (I don't want to generalise with the "right" as we know neither side is one monolithic group) to throw insults? Can't they debate content not emotional pain?

I think victims are perfectly entitled to express their opinion. Some parents of dead soldiers came out and pledged support to Bush - and you know what? That's fine!

Quote:

The fact is that the Left constantly uses victims to get their message across instead of letting the DNC head actually do his job & get the message across. It would be a lot easier & less controversial if Coulter, or any subject on the Right, simply had to respond to Dean instead of being labeled as "vicious" for finally making remarks about these 4 women.

Yes because we all know only the heads of the DNC and RNC are allowed to talk about politics. I mean, what could anyone else add to the debate?

I think anyone should be able to say debate the issues and put forward their opinion- if thats the head of the RNC on The Daily Show or Arianna Huffington on Hannity and Colmes or Ann Coulter on the Today Show, it doesn't matter. God, how boring would political debate be if only Dean and Mehlman (sp?) were allowed to speak?

Just one question - do you think the comments about the state of marriage, the enjoyment of their husband's deaths, the labels such as "witches" and "harpies" is approrpriate? Cause if Ann Coulter had just crticised their actions (you're doing it here without resorting to name calling and cruelty) then we would be discussing content not vicious cruelty.

ceilirose · 06-14-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoNiGHTS

On Bush's re election campaign the Daily Show spliced together a bunch of footage of Bush and people helping him get re elected using 9/11 an amazing amount of times. I think both sides used it alot, and in reality it should've been. It's not really something you can ignore. But I think it's rather disgusting that it wasn't all that long ago that Republicans were using these victims and the event that really changed their life as a way to keep Bush in office, and now that they've got it they somehow feel they can attack them. I just hope everyone remembers this when the next election comes up, because it says alot. And if Giuliani is running, they should keep in mind that he didn't say anything about Coulters comments. Remember that because it shows that he's one of those people that puts his party before anything else.

Also if Guiliani runs for President you can be sure one of his campaign themes will be 9/11 and how he reacted after that. Is that using a tragedy and it's victims to further your career?

I remember the Republicans reaction to Michael Moore when he appeared at the RNC Convention in '04. From McCain on down they pretty much all had to criticiize him. The only elected Republicans who have criticized Coulter are Pataki and Rep. King from New York. Are there any others?

TokyoNiGHTS · 06-14-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose

I remember the Republicans reaction to Michael Moore when he appeared at the RNC Convention in '04. From McCain on down they pretty much all had to criticiize him. The only elected Republicans who have criticized Coulter are Pataki and Rep. King from New York. Are there any others?

Olbermann showed like 1 or 2 more but its really interesting. There was a Democrat that stood up in the senate and asked a question, he said

Quote:

Does Ann Coulter speak for you when she suggests poisoning [..] Supreme Court Justices or slanders the 9/11 windows—widows? If not, speak now. Your silence allows her to be your spokesman.

I think it's a legitimate question. Democrats are always asked about Michael Moore and they'll usually say whether or not they agree or disagree with him (although I can't recall him making any comments on the same level as Coulter so its alot easier). So why can't Republicans do the same here? Is it because they actually do agree with her? Is it because they put their party politics ahead of their own views? I'd say if the answer is yes to either one of them then people should think twice about voting for someone like that. When you think about it, is this really something so difficult to say you disagree with? You've got a woman suggesting that other women are enjoying their husbands death (and in any context that's disturbing), suggesting that their husbands were possibly considering getting a divorce from them ect. And they can't just make a comment saying that they don't agree with her? I've seen more comments from Republicans who do agree with her than who don't agree with her.

UnsilentMajorty · 06-14-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoNiGHTS

You've got a woman suggesting that other women are enjoying their husbands death (and in any context that's disturbing), suggesting that their husbands were possibly considering getting a divorce from them ect. And they can't just make a comment saying that they don't agree with her? I've seen more comments from Republicans who do agree with her than who don't agree with her.

As stated previously, a lot of people are now more loyal to an ideology or a political party than they are to themselves (in some cases) and or what is best for this country as a whole.

It didn't used to be like this.

It really did not.

I know a lot of younger posters/readers may be very cynical and think, "Yeah. Sure. The world is a bad place. Always has been, always will be".

You're right to a certain degree, but it has never been as bad as it has been in this country until now. I can definitely tell you there has been a shift for the worse in how this country conducts the business of politics and the figurative "open forum" it used to have which gave everyone a voice... And this is only within the last 10 years, let alone 30, or 40.

We no longer have civil disagreements and a common interest at stake in this country anymore.

This is exactly what I meant when I said in another thread about the U.S. slowly turing into a third-world country where only the rich and well-to-do have a voice in how things are run.

It is now everyone for him/herself and/or the party or interest group they support and everyone else be damned... Even if it only benefits a select group and not the majority of the country as a whole. If you dare oppose these people they attack you on a personal level -- like Ann Coulter -- Not only because they can, but because it distracts from the real issues which may be at hand like the fact some of these widows and 9/11 families are criticizing the 9/11 Commission Reports about Homeland Security improvements (or lack thereof).

As I said, some of you younger readers/posters may not realize this was not how politics and open discussion used to be conducted... And this is the part which worries me most of all because young persons are the future of this country (and the world) and if they think how things are currently being done is the 'norm' we as a nation and the rest of the world are in for hard times ahead when a lot of it could possibly be avoided due to more civility and actual diplomacy instead of the "My way, or the highway" approach which is being ingrained in an entire generation as of right now thanks to Ann Coulter and other select indviduals who only care about themselves and how much money they can make.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows