Ann Coulter on 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.
w4rma, may I point out that the first plane hitting the WTC was viewed by many - including myself - as a tragic accident? It's only when the second plane hit that it was realized that this was no accident, but a deliberate attack. So the President didn't look alarmed when informed of the first plane? Neither would I have been alarmed - distressed, yes, sorry, yes, but not alarmed.
…
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html
 
w4rma, yah, Preacherman apparently didn't read the link you provided, which makes it clear that the pictures are following the second airliner crash. You still haven't addressed the points that I made:

It appears to me that he's thoughtfully considering the situation, which is the reasonable response to the situation. What exactly did you expect him to do differently?--take charge of the "Football" and order launches against random targets in the Middle East?
 
Order the commercial airliners down from the sky and air-force jets to intercept any non-responders (like the one that, soon afterwards, hits the Pentagon). Come out and calm everyone down instead of, soon afterwards, flying around the country to multiple undisclosed locations to hide. Do something other than continue to read a story about a girl's pet goat and be a incompetent miserable failure.

Edited for accuracy:
He was reading a story about a girl's pet goat, not "The Very Hungry Caterpillar".
 
Last edited:
What rational reason would there be for doing that?:

1. All he knows about at that time is that there has been an apparent terrorist attack in which two aircraft were flown into the World Trade Center. Flying into a building is completely unprecedented. (There may have been documents in US possession that suggested that that might be one of many, many things that the terrorists were thinking of doing, but a) That probably hadn't been brought to his attention, and b) He was a trained pilot; as a pilot, your entire mind-set is to make sure that you don't run into things. That someone would do that on purpose is as bizzare a thought as it is to suppose that a bowling ball might fall up when dropped.) That two hijacked aircraft were involved was also unprecedented. To suppose that even more hijacked were in the air was totally outside the realm of plausibility.

2. As the article you reference admits, they were not yet aware of the third and fourth hijacked planes. As I discussed in the preceding point, two hijacked planes was a major stretch; to suppose that there were more was just not, at that time, reasonable.

3. We don't shoot down US passenger aircraft. We don't even shoot other countries' passenger aircraft.

4. You don't shut down essentially the entire US economy on two or three minutes of reflection.

With all due respect, what you suggest is completely absurd in that time frame. And in a more reasonable time frame, what he did is pretty much exactly what you expect that he should have done.

(Edited to add: The post that I responded to read: "Order the commercial airliners down from the sky and air-force jets to intercept any non-responders (like the one that, soon afterwards, hits the Pentagon)." The rest of his post was added after I responded to him.)
 
All the miserable failure knows is: "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."

His response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing for at least 5 minutes, except to continue reading a children's book.

Indefensible.
 
All Crusader Bunnypants knows is:
OK, Mr. Cursader Bunnypants, Sir, I think I will just slooowly back out the door of your padded cell, and ask the kindly doctor to check if your cape is on too tight, and make sure you've had your Thorazine today.

(Edited to add historical note: The first paragraph of w4rma's previous post originally read, "All Crusader Bunnypants knows is: 'A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack.'" I think my response was appropriate when someone who has his logic challenged suddenly morphs into "Crusader Bunnypants.")
 
We need more Ann Coulter's...

...to balance out people like w4rma.

w4rma, god bless ya, every post I read of yours makes me happy I'm behind the well fortified bunker of gun-slinging, right-wing extremism. Keep up the good work! :p

Il Duce
 
You know - I hear as much from the lefties about how the media is biased against them as I do from some of you.

Wonder who's right? Probably both to some extent are correct, of course mixed in with a suitable amount of paranoia and over-sensitivity.
 
"Should have invaded"? Which country? Sudan? Qatar? Afghanistan? All of the above? (And by "we" you really mean "somebody else", right? As in the real warriors in uniform and not the armchair generals/cheerleaders here at home. Real easy to advocate war when someone else's life and limb are at stake.)

Cheerleader? Armchair general? How dare you.

It is easy for people like you to hurl insults across the anonymous internet at distant people you know nothing about.

As point of fact I was still in the army when the embassies were hit. So do not tell me what the "real warriors in uniform" do and do not support.

And even if I was not your arguement holds no water. Because what you are saying is that the military should not have to listen to civil authorities. Well here we have civilian control of the military, a good concept I believe. What you are saying is that the military should be able to refuse a mission at its own discretion. After all we cannot have these "cheerleaders" and "armchair generals" telling the military what to do.

When your neighbors house is on fire it is perfectly reasonable for you to call the fire department - "other people" and ask them to do a job that you cannot do yourself. When your citizens are murdered in a terrorist attack it is reasonable for people to expect the military to do its best to eliminate the threat.

As to who we should have invaded - Afghanistan of course, the safe harbor of Usama. Bob Kerry said words to this effect in the 9-11 hearings: "We had a round in the chamber and we didn't use it." Is he an armchair general and cheerleader too? He is a former SEAL who left a leg in Vietnam and wears a medal of honor.

The record shows that the US gov did support Ahmed Shah Massoud with arms and money before he was assassinated.

Not nearly enough.

Now why don't you lose the attitude and don't make assumptions about people you know nothing of.
 
Well, most of what Ann says is fact. The silly liberals just respond with talk about how she shouldn't be so mean, but they can't find her in error. She seldom states something that is blatantly untrue.
 
Former Senator Bob Kerrey was a Seal in VN, lost a leg in the process winning the Medal of Honor.

Senator John Kerry was the swift boat CO, who wrote up his own recommendations for Purple Hearts and Silver Star awards.
 
I misspelled his name - Kerrey from Nebraska was on the 9-11 commission, but I spelled it like Kerry from Mass.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/moh/moh20.htm#kerrey

Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Joseph R. Kerrey, United States Naval Reserve

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 14 March 1969 while serving as a SEAL Team Leader during action against enemy aggressor (Viet Cong) forces in the Republic of Vietnam. Acting in response to reliable intelligence, Lieutenant (jg) Kerrey lead his SEAL Team on a mission to capture important members of the enemy's area political cadre known to be located on an island in the bay of Nha Trang. In order to surprise the enemy, he and his team scaled a 350-foot sheer cliff to place themselves above the ledge on which the enemy was located. Splitting his team in two elements and coordinating both, Lieutenant (jg) Kerrey led his men in the treacherous downward descent to the enemy's camp. Just as they neared the end of their descent, intense enemy fire was directed at them, and Lieutenant (jg) Kerrey received massive injuries from a grenade which exploded at his feet and threw him backward onto the jagged rocks. Although bleeding profusely and suffering great pain, he displayed outstanding courage and presence of mind in immediately directing his element's fire into the heart of the enemy camp. Utilizing his radioman, Lieutenant (jg) Kerrey called in the second element's fire support which caught the confused Viet Cong in a devastating cross fire. After successfully suppressing the enemy's fire, and although immobilized by his multiple wounds, he continued to maintain calm, superlative control as he ordered his team to secure and defend an extraction site. Lieutenant (jg) Kerrey resolutely directed his men, despite his near-unconscious state, until he was eventually evacuated by helicopter. The havoc brought to the enemy by this very successful mission cannot be overestimated. The enemy who were captured provided critical intelligence to the allied effort. Lieutenant (jg) Kerrey's courageous and inspiring leadership, valiant fighting spirit, and tenacious devotion to duty in the face of almost overwhelming opposition, sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the United States Naval Service.


http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/n_8653/

Shortly after he arrived in Manhattan, Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran who lost his right leg below the knee to a grenade, was visited by the ghosts from his war past.
 
Ann Coulter always makes for interesting reading. She has strong opinions and doesn't mince words. However she's sometimes as guilty of spinning the facts as much as the far left.

I enjoy reading what she writes, but I don't always take her comments at face value. She makes good points, but sometimes makes conclusions that the evidence isn't quite able to prove. I'm not saying that the facts disprove her conclusions either, she just seems to be willing to fill in the blanks of the available information with her opinions a little more than I'm willing to do myself.
 
Cheerleader? Armchair general? How dare you. ... What you are saying is that the military should be able to refuse a mission at its own discretion.

I'm sorry that you missed my point. Anyway, I was referring to the kind of people who are all in favor of war so long as it's someone else or someone else's relatives who will fight it.

If you served in the armed forces, then you at least have an inkling about the rigors of a soldier's life, and perhaps even the terror of combat.

President Bush: "I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

"But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack.' "

It was utterly impossible for the president to have seen the first plane hit the WTC that morning. The first collision - unlike the second collision - was not filmed live. It was not until much later that videotape of the first collision (which had been inadvertently caught on some tourist's videocam) was released.

When the president says that he saw the first airplane hit the WTC that morning, he is make a false statement. The next question becomes: did the president know that he was making a false statement? Is this another one of his lies? Or is the president like a babbling little child who doesn't know what he saw or what he is saying?
 
No, he did not make a false statement. He made an mistaken statement. You do see the difference between those, I trust?

And it is quite likely that President Bush would reasonably perceive what he saw as the first plane hitting the towers. Subsequent to being briefed that a plane had hit the WTC, he would have seen the TV image of a plane flying into the WTC. It is logical to connect the two as the same event, since, at the time, he had no knowledge of anything other than the first strike. It would have been a fair while later, after it worked up the chain of command, that he was informed of the second strike. So his recollection of what he saw is reasonable: He was a TV image of a strike on the WTC, followed later by a being told that there had been a second strike.
 
M1911Owner,

A false statment is a statement that is false. Motive: unknown.
A lie is a statement that is false. Motive: to deceive.
A mistaken statment is a statement that is false. Motive: unintentional deceit.

Unless you are a mind reader, or the perp has admitted a motive to deceive, one cannot state as a fact that this was either a lie or a mistaken statement. If one assumes that Bush didn't have access to a closed circuit camera of the crashes, one can say that this was a false statment. The word "false" does not imply a motive, unlike the other two choices.

I have not formed an opinion, yet, as to whether that part of his statement was false or true or a lie or simply mistaken.
 
I would like to have her share my foxhole. Only thing she has to keep her mouth shut.
 
The problem with Coulter

The problem with Ann Coulter was articulated by Mark A. Kleiman. "When Ann Coulter expressed her wish that Timothy McVeigh had murdered the entire staff of the New York Times, she put herself beyond the pale of civilized discourse. Anyone who now quotes her, links to her approvingly, or supports her financially is dirtying himself: Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

Coulter's remarks rank right down there with DailyKos's atrocious remarks about the four dead mercs.
 
Order the commercial airliners down from the sky and air-force jets to intercept any non-responders (like the one that, soon afterwards, hits the Pentagon). Come out and calm everyone down instead of, soon afterwards, flying around the country to multiple undisclosed locations to hide. Do something other than continue to read a story about a girl's pet goat and be a incompetent miserable failure.
Is this what you would expect Clinton to do if he would have been in office? Get real. In order to make a decision that affects not only the entire US but also global commerce and travel as well, you need INFORMATION. You cannot make an INFORMED DECISION without information, and you dont get information within 5 minutes of an annonymous attack. He continued doing what he was doing while his advisors and cabinet gathered information for him to make a decision. There is no point in getting up and rushing off like a bolt of lightning without a clue where he should go and what he should do. Its not like it was Pearl Harbor with big red "Rising Suns" on Zeke's and Betty's flying overhead. :rolleyes:


You might want to try living in the real world for a few years before making real-world decisions. Nice Armchair-Quarterbacking though.:scrutiny: :barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top