1 I think most people's problem with the queen of the harpies statment was the contention that the widows were "glad" that their husbands died.

2 I'm no big fan of Coulter. She's too far right and too radical for me. But she's right on this one.

3 Sonic, since you're so fond of parsing words, she said they were "enjoying" their husband's deaths; meaning the fortune it has brought them. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you're of the crowd who proves her point about lifting these martyrs up and claiming they're 'untouchable' lest you be 'insensitive'.

4 Oyster, I'm flabbergasted at you. You are saying that these widows are "enjoying" their husbands death? that's what Coulter said. Not exploiting. Not using them for their political ends. ENJOYING. ENJOYING.

What a sick, twisted, stupid, attention-starved, ridiculous witch she is.

And for the record, how many of you have seen "Jessica's Story"? It was a devastatingly effective ad by GWBush in the 2004 ad, made about a father and a daughter who lost their wife/mother in the 9-11 attacks. The father said that he felt safer with GWB as president and the daughter talked about how much it meant that GWB hugged her. I've seldom seen something as exploitative of personal tragedy as that treacly ad (except the one for Clinton by the father of the little murdered girl). But if Coulter really believes that LIBERALS haul out people to talk about issues they are unqualified to talk about, and exploit human tragedy, then they certainly have company with GWB.

Remember, also, that they had relatives of the slain at both conventions.

But nobody, nobody, but Ann "batshit insane" coulter would say that they ENJOYED the deaths of their loved ones.

Oyster, do you really agree with that?

5 >>>>But nobody, nobody, but Ann "batshit insane" coulter would say that they ENJOYED the deaths of their loved ones.

No, the Harpies didn't enjoy the death of their loved ones, but they sure do seem to be enjoying the fame and attention it got them. Ann Coulter's point exactly.

6 If that was her point, why the hell didn't she SAY that?

And I think that unbelievable cheap shot about posing for playboy says that what Coulter was trying to do was just be cruel. These women have worked like dogs to publicize their views about the security lapses that led to their husbands deaths. You may disagree with them. They never said you couldn't. Many people have. But Coulter seeks to punish them for speaking out, by denigrating their loss.

It is wrong for someone to shut down a viewpoint because it goes against a personal tragedy, I agree. That's why 9-11 families who disagree with the 4 women have formed themselves. there was no need to be a heartless fiend about it. That's what Coulter is.

Actually, Andrew Sullivan has it more exactly: unlike Malkin, who believes what she says, you always have the sense that Coulter is a cagey performance artist, playing an extremist for fun and profit. A HUGE profit.

7 jd,

Coulter really believes what she says, and that's pretty much how she explained what she meant on the radio today. She's a polemicist and she offends people, but behind the snark is always the hard truth

8 With respect to "ventriloquize" comment, Hitchens was simply pointing out that Sheehan, when it suits her, claims to speak for her son even when expressing views he opposed. Hey, it was called "Camp Casey" after all, not Camp Cindy, which would have been more accurate. Pointing that out is #1 factually accurate, and #2 a far cry from claiming Sheehan is glad her son is dead, and even Sheehan doesn't deserve that kind of grotesque smear. Honestly, it seems like a pretty clear distinction to me.

9 You are correct, the word was "enjoyed"

How anyone can say that a widow, "enjoyed" the fact her husband burned to death escapes me.

However Annie will sell lots and lots of books, one could even argue that she "enjoyed' 9-11, if that was not a sickening thing to say.

10 Damn JD. You sound as if Ann Coulter was anti gay.

11 test

12 My entire comment is being rejected. I'll try again later.

13 The whole comment is being called "questionable content". Why I'm able to even post this is beyond me.

14 Pointing that out is #1 factually accurate, and #2 a far cry from claiming Sheehan is glad her son is dead, and even Sheehan doesn't deserve that kind of grotesque smear. Honestly, it seems like a pretty clear distinction to me.

Honestly, it's like you've never heard of a wake. Of course it's possible to enjoy something that flows from the death of a loved one. It's the whole point of being Irish. Coulter's point goes a bit beyond that only in the sense that she thinks what the girls enjoy is something that she considers morally reprehensible... something closely akin to treason.

And again, she didn't say they were glad their loved ones were dead. That's been pointed out several times, yet you continue to claim it. Sheesh, wake up!

15 Demo, that's as pure a version of sophistry, in the modern sense, that I've come across in a month of sundays. You are indeed well named.

An IRISH WAKE? Do you really think that was her meaning?

She said they better hurry up and pose for Playboy. She said they were enjoying the deaths of their husbands. It is, as Sonic so wisely pointed out, a very different thing from what Hitchens said.

Coulter has said some anti-gay things over the years, and the irony is that she is, apparently, in her personal life very tolerant of gays. She's spoken out against premarital sex, and does it regularly. That's why I don't think she believes what she says. It's like hearing Clinton lecture against infidelity.

Oyster--the problem may be that you are trying to post something too long.

16 An IRISH WAKE? Do you really think that was her meaning?

How very sophisticated of you. Of course, I never said that that's what she meant. The comment was just by way of pointing out that all the self-righteous demonizing on the basis that she suggested someone might be enjoying what flows from the death of a loved one is a little overblown. I mean, the proper response wasn't "shock and awe" but "so what?" But then such a frank acknowledgement is hardly appropriate for women of such deeply sombre intensity.

She said they better hurry up and pose for Playboy. She said they were enjoying the deaths of their husbands. It is, as Sonic so wisely pointed out, a very different thing from what Hitchens said.

Of course you're right. Playing puppets with a corpse really isn't as much fun as it's cracked up to be. Unless you're Irish, I mean. (And have had a few glasses of fine old Irish whiskey.)

17 Imagine if some left intellectual said of the several parents of the fallen in Iraq who have supported the president:

"they are just enjoying the deaths of their sons."

they would rightfully be derided by all, left right and center. Same rules apply here. Unless you think it is fine to say that widows of those who died on 9-11 are enjoying their husbands death.

What would she have to say to get some criticism from you people? She's already said that she regrets that the terrorists didn't take out the New York Times (thus saying that terrorism is a condign punishment for other Americans if she happens to disagree with them), she's called for us to invade other countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity....She mocked Max Cleland for the manner in which he became injured on active duty.

I know what she'd have to say. "I'm voting Democratic."

Other than that, any extremism, no matter how vile, how cruel, how destructive of the common discourse, will get a free pass from y'all.

How lovely.

18 Demosophist: "And again, she didn't say they were glad their loved ones were dead"

Ann Coulter: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

I'm sorry demo, were you making some point about how I needed to wake up?

19 The demacraps are braying over what ANN COULTER said about HILLARY CLINTON just like them whan someone upsets hillary she lets loose her flying monkies that work in the main-stream left-wing news media

20 Just for the record, I did not defend Coulter's choice of words, only the concept behind it. I started off with stating that I am no big fan of Coulter. Must I say I hate her guts and wish she were to dead in order to please you? I love how I, and others, are being accused of "giving free passes". It seems you're only upset with how she said it but I see little defense for what she's accused them of. They've simply gone on the attack for how it was said. Yeah, Coulter's delivery sucked; it often does. It's partly why I'm not a fan. But don't blow smoke up my ass by pretending these women aren't allowing themselves to be used by the anti-war crowd and enjoying the benefits it produces at the expense of moving on with their lives and once again becoming the normal people they were before.

That's my last word on the subject.

21 I don't think the war is what these women focus on. They focus on 9-11. They fought like hell for a neutral investigation, which Bush opposed. They fought like hell to get documents declassified, which Bush opposed. They fought like hell to find out that Bush was told in Aug of 01 "Bin Laden intends to attack in US". Hell, I'd end up not liking hte president very much if I knew that. They are not politically sophisticated, but I don't for a moment doubt their sincerity. They may be wrong. They may have endorsed Kerry, when he wasn't the man you like for president. But they certainly don't deserve to be treated the way Coulter treated them. The issue is not the "tone" of what Coulter said. It was what she said. It was vile. How can we as a nation pull together with a divisive force like Coulter out there? She's the white Al Sharpton. Both deserve nothing but disdain and disgust from all of us. I'm not asking anyone to disavow her. But I was responding to a DEFENSE of her posted here. I will judge anyone who tries to lessen how evil her words are.