So living in Colorado I have had to hear day in and day out about Ward Churchill. But Ward Churchill will never be given a microphone by Democrats, he can say what he wants, I don't care, we live in America. But what is the difference from Republicans? Republicans can't race quick enough to give the bile running out Ann Coulter's mouth the largest microphone possible. She is on all the major hate radio shows, she gets on Fox News, the major networks can't wait to have her on. This doesn't happen to Ward Churchill. The wackos from the left are vilified to death but the wackos on the right are given a front row seat.
Now take a look at this exchange from Hannity and Coulter...just amazing, below
COULTER: Yes, it's liberal infallibility. They used to have complete, 100 percent control of news dissemination in America. They lost that with FOX News, with talk radio, with the Internet. So then they started complaining about, you know, angry voices, political dialogue has never been so divisive. And then people remember the sweetness and light we were getting from the left during, say, the Bork hearings, so that wasn't really working.
So now they send out spokespeople who, because of some personal tragedy, we're not allowed to respond to, because their husbands died in 9/11, because they have a son die in Iraq. If they're making a point worth making, they are entering the public dialogue, how about letting Howard Dean make the point?
HANNITY: All right, but here's -- I guess this is what people are saying. This is why you're on the front page of the tabloids in New York. You're saying they've entered the political arena. Now, I've gone and I've been looking at some of the comments, for example, of the Jersey Women in particular...
COULTER: Right.
HANNITY: ... they have been very harsh about Condi Rice, about Karl Rove...
COULTER: Oh, yes.
HANNITY: ... about President Bush, very outspoken. They were on the campaign trail with John Edwards and with John Kerry.
COULTER: Right. They cut a campaign commercial for Kerry.
HANNITY: They cut a campaign. So basically what you're saying is, if they're going to enter the political arena separate from the loss of their husbands, that now this is a dialogue. If they call the president a liar, this is now a dialogue. And you're saying most people won't dare get engaged with them because of what they've been through, which is the purpose of...
COULTER: That's certainly been true until now. I think I've opened it up now. I think I've broken the taboo.
HANNITY: Well, here's -- this is, I guess, where people say, "All right, but did Ann Coulter go too far? These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if it happened only to them. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and articles reveling in their status as celebrities, stalked by the grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."
COULTER: That's true. That's right.
First off the widows have never said Bush lied, not even close and if you read closely you will see is Hannity and Coulter are using a hypothetical situation that never occurred to justify their hateful logic.
This is how dishonest these people have to be, they can't deal with reality, they can't deal with what actually happened and then respond to that, instead they make it up as they go, tell us that what they just made up applies to us and then attack us for something that only occured in their head.
The widows major issues with Bush and they have said this from the beginning is that Bush has dragged his feet at ever turn to create a 9/11 commission and he hasn't done what is necessary to protect us. Now compare the above exchange to the press release the 9/11 windows were forced to release because of Ann Coulter's hateful comments.
I am going to post the entire press release to show exactly why these women have been so out spoken and to compare and contrast their priorties with those of Hannity and Coulter.
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 underprotected 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 reinstatement 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
Now continue with Hannity.
HANNITY: But the point here is, is that they have taken a strong, a harsh line politically against the president, that they name call on their side, and that now it's time to challenge them, based on what these issues are, because they've gotten a pass because of their positions?
COULTER: Right. And it is entirely premised on a tragedy happening to them. And as I was saying -- I think Alan interrupted me, so it may not have gotten out -- I think this is one of the ugliest things the left has done to political dialogue in this country, this idea that you need some sort of personal authenticity in order to make a political point.
I mean, can I not talk to you about the Irish potato famine because I don't understand it? Can you not talk to me about women? No, how about let's just debate and cut the personal authenticity?
Moreover, you know, liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation. They just love being indignant, indignant. Does this mean they accept the other ideas in my book? Does this mean, you know, Darwinism, everything I say about Darwinism being a crock, that's all settled here?
No, they just settle on one little thing, that they can express indignation.
HANNITY: Well, let me tell you what we've done.
(APPLAUSE)
HANNITY: You have accepted a challenge to put on the air on the issues. You will debate any of these women or all of these women tomorrow night, if they want to come. And you've accepted our invitation.
Yes Hannity, please show me where the 9/11 widows have name called anyone, please show me where Coulter has addressed one single issue that these brave women have brought up. The 9/11 widows have laid out consistantly based on the issues where Bush has not taken the necessary steps to secure this nation after 9/11, that is why they supported Kerry. Hannity on the other hand is still just making it up, I am sorry Hannity but it is impossible for me or anyone else to address something that has only occured in your head, but then maybe that is just the point.