Monday, February 13, 2006

Last Coulter post

I sometimes feel like Eric Stratton: "Point of parliamentary procedure!"

There are too many corrupt Democrats slipping past while I endeavor to defend Ann Coulter who is, after all, a big girl who can defend herself.

But I just came across an online item about the CPAC uproar that I cannot allow to go unanswered. This was written by a veteran conservative researcher who has done wondrous things for the cause, so I will not identify him or link the source. It appears that this good man has reacted to a redacted media version of Coulter's remark, because he writes:
Perhaps it could have been excused had she made it clear she was referring to Islamists and not Muslims in general, but she did not. Indeed, her speech seemed to suggest that she wasn't making that distinction. It is cliche, but true: the vast majority of Muslims are not Islamists.

The claim that Ann's meaning was unclear is absolutely wrong, and I again am grateful for Matthew Vadum's partial transcript (hey, Matthew, can you do the whole thing?) of Coulter's speech:

“Iran is, is, an Iranian newspaper is holding a contest for cartoons on the Holocaust, but So far, the only submissions have been from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the New York Times. The one notable exception to the Muslims with bipolar disorder, um, is in Iraq, I note, so I guess this war for oil has some side benefits.

Muslims are the only group who kill because they’re angry people have called them violent.

"Bowing and scraping to savages, I think we’re supposed to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the claim that the Koran prohibits depictions of Mohammed, I have documentation to back that up, the NATO treaty, um,
Syria torched and burned to the ground the Danish embassy last week, and according to everyone, according to Condoleeza Rice, according to the prime minister of Denmark, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, the Syrian government was behind it. McClellan said, for example, we will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support.

"I think we have to do a whole lot more than ‘hold them responsible’ for a state-sponsored attack on Danish territory, the Danish embassy. By the terms of the NATO treaty we have an obligation along with most of European nations to attack Syria right now. Or is NATO, like conventions of civilized society, inapplicable when Muslims are involved? They complain about unilateral action. Well, according to the terms of the NATO treaty, written by Dean Acheson and a bunch of Democrats, Spain, France, Germany, Greece, they all have an obligation to attack Syria right now. So saddle up, Mister Ghami." [surname spelled phonetically].

So, we see that she is referring to "Muslims with bipolar disorder" in terms of the violent response to the Danish cartoons. (One might think that advocates for the mentally ill would be next to denounce Ann Coulter: "How dare you compare us to those ... um, aggrieved victims of Western imperialism?" But perhaps Ann wasn't taking her lithium bicarbonate when she came up with that particular metaphor. Maybe she should have said, "Muslims with Howard Dean Syndrome.")

Matthew's transcription is, however, not complete, so he doesn't have the full setup for the ... er, money shot. However, he does say that Coulter was addressing the question of "whether Iran has nuclear weapons" when she then said:

“Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, but they’re certainly acting like they do. What if they start having [several words unintelligible at this point on the recording] bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons? If you don’t want to get shot by the police, don’t point a gun at them. Or, or as I think our motto should be post-9/11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

So, contrary to the writer who asserted that Ann failed to make "clear she was referring to Islamists and not Muslims in general," to me it was very clear and specific:

She was talking about

He is a Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating, crazy genocidal a--hole. (The hotlink on his name is to a USA Today interview with the democratically-elected genocidal a--hole.)

Q. Gee, Mr. Chamberlain, I wonder why somebody like that would want nuclear weapons?
A. Gosh, Mr. Daladier, I just don't know.

Maybe this is kind of like those guys who wanted to learn to FLY 747s but had no interest in learning to LAND 747s, huh?

But six of one (Atta & Co.) half-a-dozen of the other (Ahmadinejad) "post 9/11" what motto would you suggest? Hmmm?

Would your "post 9/11" motto be: "Let's wait and see if these hate-filled lunatics really want to kill us all, like they've been telling us for years"?

Quite frankly, I was not a hawk about this Iran-nukes thing until, oh, about 2 minutes ago when I Googled up what the genocidal a--hole told USA Today. (Dang it, that evil Ann Coulter is going to make a neocon chickenhawk warmonger out of me yet!)

In addressing the "raghead" slur controversy, then, I quite clearly disagree with Ann on the issue of terminology, personally preferring "Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating, crazy genocidal a--hole." But regardless of what insulting term anyone might prefer in discussing President Ahmcrazyhed (did I mention he was democratically-elected? hello?) I think we can all agree that it would not be a good thing if he were to become a "Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating, crazy genocidal nuclear-armed a--hole."

And maybe that was the point she was trying to make. But we are now about 60 hours before Ann's column goes online at WorldNetDaily (around 8 p.m. Wednesday), and maybe then she will make clear whether her ill-considered slur was intended for (a) all Muslims everywhere, or (b) crazy genocidal a--holes like Osama bin Laden and Iranian President Ahmcrazyhed.