Ann Coulter on Cindy Sheehan

[BCPVP]

How's that for an incindiery title? I usually don't like Ann Coulter's columns. Her sarcasm takes up about 95% of anything she writes and usually consists of pointing out why Dems are just as bad, blah blah blah, and it grates on my nerves. But out of morbid curiosity, I clicked on the Real Clear Politics link to her article and here's what I got. Emphasis mine.

************************************************** ********

CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF
by Ann Coulter
August 17, 2005

To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.

Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast.

These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November.

But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.

On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.

Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her.

************************************************** ***********

The "absolute" comment made me laugh out loud, something I don't do often when reading Coulter.

It also seems that this Sheehan thing is not getting a whole lot of positive press. From the last couple days, here are some op-ed articles on Sheehan from most of the major news sources:
Peace Nik Paper Fawns Over Peace Mom
Context Missing in Sheehan's Personal Argument
'Peace Mom's' Marriage a Metaphor for Dems
A Circus of Grief
What Cindy Sheehan Really Wants
Moral Authority on a Slippery Slope
You know it's getting bad when Jonathan Chait is turning against you...
Who Speaks for Casey Sheehan?
Cindy She Does not Speak for Me
The Consoling President Bush's Private Meetings Conservative Compassion

[ptmusic]

It's so typical that she ends her intro paragraph with "Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn."

I can't wait until she really hits the wall (looks-wise): her career will be over. I give it 5 years maximum.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

Yes, her column is full of liberal-bashing. That's what she does.

Is all you've got that she bashs liberals and won't look good in 5 years? I expected a something a little more oriented towards Cindy Sheehan, as that was the topic she was writing about.

[SammyKid11]

The problem I have with Ann Coulter is this...even when she does have a salient point (which is rare), she ruins it with her incessant name-calling. She pretends to have the ethical clarity to tell us liberals that we do not know how to mourn...but in the same article calls a grieving mother of a slain son turned war protester...wait for it...a STALINIST.

Good job, Ann. I can't wait for some major tragedy to impact your personal life so that everyone you've ever pissed on can write an article belittling and laughing at you. Oh wait -- you're the only one with a column who has the audacity to talk like that.

Way to up the ante on the level of public debate.

[natedogg]

Any pundit who says anything other than "She's a grieving mother and I won't judge her reaction to losing her son to war" is scum.

Guess what, I haven't heard/read a single one say that, from either side. It's despicable the way these right wing blowhards have piled on her and the way these camera hogging leftists like have jumped on her bandwagon.

Yeah, she's being silly, yeah she's obviously partisan but she LOST HER SON. The woman is entitled to go hysterical and act foolish in front of the cameras. Let her say whatever the hell she wants without piling on her.

The left and the right are both being absolutely ridiculous about this.

natedogg

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Any pundit who says anything other than "She's a grieving mother and I won't judge her reaction to losing her son to war" is scum.

Guess what, I haven't heard/read a single one say that, from either side. It's despicable the way these right wing blowhards have piled on her and the way these camera hogging leftists like have jumped on her bandwagon.

Yeah, she's being silly, yeah she's obviously partisan but she LOST HER SON. The woman is entitled to go hysterical and act foolish in front of the cameras. Let her say whatever the hell she wants without piling on her.

The left and the right are both being absolutely ridiculous about this.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

nate dogg wins


seriously wtf is the media giving so much coverage to her for as well? in addition to the left and right being wrong.


and who the [censored] cares what ann coulter has to say? shes has the mental capacity of a 9 year old. on a good day.

[andyfox]

Ms. Coulter's usual argument is to call anyone she doesn't agree with a traitor or a communist. So no surprise when she compares Ms. Sheehan's actions to Stalin's. And no surprise that she continues to equate the Iraq war with 9/11, because she never lets facts get in the way of a good argument.

[BCPVP]

Why is natedogg (who I presume is a libertarian) telling everyone else to shut up about the ridiculous behavior and speeches of someone? Even a grieving mother. Are you of the same opinion as Maureen Dowd, who believes that since Sheehan lost a son she is beyond question and retains an absolute moral authority?

Who's saying Cindy shouldn't have the right to act like such a buffoon? It seems just about every article I've read regarding Cindy Sheehan has said both that she has such a right and that the author is sorry for her loss.

[ QUOTE ]
Any pundit who says anything other than "She's a grieving mother and I won't judge her reaction to losing her son to war" is scum.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what of others who are in the same situation as Sheehan? Should they also shut the hell up and mind their own business?

I expected better from you, nate.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, her column is full of liberal-bashing. That's what she does.

Is all you've got that she bashs liberals and won't look good in 5 years? I expected....

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't put too much stock in expectations; it often leads to disappointment. I chose to use this opportunity to goof on Coulter rather than to critique on her comments, mainly because I think she's very lame. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

Actually, I have heard Randi Rhodes make just such a comment.

-ptmusic