NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/07/coulter-widows.html

9/11 widows 'enjoying husbands' death': conservative pundit

Last Updated Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:01:55 EDT
CBC News

Four widows instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 commission are "self-obsessed" and "enjoying their husbands' deaths," said conservative author Ann Coulter.

Coulter's comments are in her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, in which she accuses the women of using their grief for political purposes.

"These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them," she writes.

"They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony."

Known as the Jersey Girls, Kristin Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza pressed for the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

'These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them revelling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis.'
-Author Ann Coulter on four 9/11 widowsThey have been publicly critical of U.S. President George W. Bush since the attacks, and endorsed Senator John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid.

Coulter writes that the group shouldn't be using the spotlight to criticize Bush.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them revelling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much."

In an appearance on MSNBC's The Situation on Tuesday, Coulter told host Tucker Carlson that the women, whom she calls the Witches of East Brunswick, should expect criticism if they are leaping into the political arena.

"If people are going to use a personal tragedy in their lives to inject themselves into a national debate, I’m sorry, you can't just say, 'We're off limits. Now we're going to invoke the fact that our husbands died, you can't criticize us.'"

Kristin Breitweiser, one of the widows, said Coulter sounded like a "very disturbed, unravelled person."

"Having my husband burn alive in a building brought me no joy," Lorie Van Auken told the New York Daily News.

Ye Gods, what a heartless, psychotic bitch, that Ms. Coulter. I wouldn't say a word if I saw an 18-wheeler bearing down on her while spewing her drivel. Good call on the part of Kristin Breitweiser.

Why hasn't anyone tried to persuade Coulter to get back on her meds, anyway?

Why does anyone pay attention to her again?

I like her, she's funny!

And just crazy enough to make the entire GOP look a bit dumber for being associated with her.

Ann Coulter's new book, "I'm A Heartless, Sadistic, Ignorant, Shallow-Minded Twat" is rumored to address issues raised in her earlier writings.

:eek: And I thought that The 700 Club was good humour.

The best thing to do is to ignore her.

That will hurt her far more then any comment.

And in response, all those "millionaires who enjoy their husband's deaths" said:

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 under-protected 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 re-instatement 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.

Man, Ann makes it seem so great to lose your loved ones in terrorist attacks that I can't wait for Trenton to be hit. It'll be great to have everyone pay attention to me and take me seriously and all it takes is for my family members and freinds to die a violent death. Seems like a bargain.

Ann Coulter's a nutjob.

Man, Ann makes it seem so great to lose your loved ones in terrorist attacks that I can't wait for Trenton to be hit. It'll be great to have everyone pay attention to me and take me seriously and all it takes is for my family members and freinds to die a violent death. Seems like a bargain.

Yeah, who doesn't enjoy losing their entire family when it brings you TV spots?

Seriously, is Ann Coulter even trying anymore? These are just starting to sound like stock one-liners meant to get people pissed off...she's trolling IRL just like Ahmadinejad in Iran.

So how is it that Anne Coulter gets all this attention paid to her, yet no-one's crashed a plane into her family's house? Talk about inequity.

Sue her for libel. Job done.

Why do so many left-oriented people read Ann Coulter?

A minor side note:

3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected 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.

I would argue that the transportation security on aircraft has gone through the roof. Now, if only they were so fastidious on other forms of mass transport.

Then again, who wants a rubber glove up their ass that often? I think that profiling would be more productive. Strip searching an 80 year old great-grandmother to see if her hip replacement socket is really just a hip replacement or a bomb is pretty stupid.

I would argue that the transportation security on aircraft has gone through the roof. Now, if only they were so fastidious on other forms of mass transport.

Maybe so, but didn't the "terrorist" get explosives on board during the last test? I'm googling now, but I swear hearing that recent tests showed that it was still relatively easy to get "illicit" materials on board a plane...

Why do so many left-oriented people read Ann Coulter?


Same reason a lot of "right oriented" people watch Michael Moore's films, I guess.


Then again, who wants a rubber glove up their ass that often? I think that profiling would be more productive. Strip searching an 80 year old great-grandmother to see if her hip replacement socket is really just a hip replacement or a bomb is pretty stupid.

Yeah? Let's ask the great-grandmother and see what she thinks before assuming we know what she wants. ;) :p

When will people realize that Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly and all the rest of the Conservative GOP lapdogs are nothing more than reactionary mouthpieces of the worst elements of our society?

Ignore the nazi bitch, she deserves zero attention.

Here, from March 17, 2006: (it wasn't actually a bomb, just bomb making materials)


By Lisa Myers, Rich Gardella & the NBC Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 1:53 p.m. ET March 17, 2006


Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Profile


WASHINGTON - Imagine an explosion strong enough to blow a car's trunk apart, caused by a bomb inside a passenger plane. Government sources tell NBC News that federal investigators recently were able to carry materials needed to make a similar homemade bomb through security screening at 21 airports.

In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through. Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one discovered the materials.

NBC News briefed former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission, on the results.

Here, from March 17, 2006: (it wasn't actually a bomb, just bomb making materials)

Until they tell people that luggage has to be shipped on a separate cargo aircraft, and that the passengers will be stripped, X-rayed, proctoscoped, and made to wear paper gowns for the duration of the flight, and will be tied up with 50 meters of duct tape binding them to the seat, there will still be a way around security.

Just because you spend money and more money on security doesn't mean that the authorities have now made you safer.

Some thoughts from Jeff Cooper on the subject:
Now it is quite true that the state can indeed abolish extortion, terrorism, and crime. History offers many examples of nations in which none of these things existed. We can start with Senacherib of Assyria and browse on up to Porfirio Diaz of Mexico. An iron fist will do it. That's the state's simple and effective answer to disorderly conduct. If you want it arranged so that the state will protect you, you can do so. What you give up in return is your liberty.

No deal.

The man to protect you is you. Not the state, not the agent of the state, and not your hired hand—YOU!

How often is our intelligence insulted by the fatuous claim that we should rely on the police for our physical security! I cannot believe that the people who advance this idea believe it themselves. The police do indeed abort a certain amount of violent crime by their coincidental presence on the scene, and that's fine. But to tell us that all we have to do is call a cop when confronted by a troll is to talk like a fool—and those who tell us this know it.

The "in" crime today is kidnapping. The police have never prevented a kidnapping. Not once. On the other hand, the intended victim often has. You don't hear much about these latter episodes, because a crime that does not take place is not newsworthy, but it is my business to know about such things and I keep track of them as best I may, and there have been at least a dozen instances brought to my attention in the last two years.

Hiring other people, public or private, to protect yourself, is perhaps not totally futile, but it must never be considered more than marginally effective. Both policemen and bodyguards can be suborned, and skill levels are problematical.

Pistol skill is not something to count on in a hired hand. Two recent examples stand out because they were caught by television cameras. These were the attempts on Governor Wallace and Imelda Marcos. In each case, guards were plentiful, and armed, but not sufficiently skilled. In each case, there was plenty of time to hit the attacker before he acted, but those responsible reacted only afterward.

On the other hand, the intended victim can seek his own skill level, and he can put it to use more quickly than any other person when he suddenly finds that he himself is a target.

Your best protector is you!

Apart from the skill factor, there is the matter of reliability. A man you hire to protect you can be hired by somebody else not to. It is nerve-wracking to be dogged about by armed men on your daily rounds, and it is also both conspicuous and un-private.

Some years ago, I undertook to train the personal guard of a certain chief of state in pistolcraft. When the course was completed, I was able to address my client thus:

"Your Excellency, 24 of your 28 men are now distinctly more efficient with their sidearms than the generality of those who guard the President of the United States. They are very good, but I don't know who they are—I hope you do."

He knew what I meant. One of his predecessors in office had been murdered by one of his own guards. Of my students who previously employed bodyguards, most now do not, except as car watchers.

Your best protector is you!

Wasn't she also the one saying people should not cooperate with the police?

Until they tell people that luggage has to be shipped on a separate cargo aircraft, and that the passengers will be stripped, X-rayed, proctoscoped, and made to wear paper gowns for the duration of the flight, and will be tied up with 50 meters of duct tape binding them to the seat, there will still be a way around security.

Just because you spend money and more money on security doesn't mean that the authorities have now made you safer.

I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm just saying that the average American airplane isn't all that much safer than it was in 2001. It sounded as if you believed that it was/they had...

I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm just saying that the average American airplane isn't all that much safer than it was in 2001. It sounded as if you believed that it was/they had...

There's a lot more security than there has been before. I'm not saying it's more effective - but to say that "nothing" has been done is ludicrous.

Here, from March 17, 2006: (it wasn't actually a bomb, just bomb making materials)
ya know, once someone starts assembling a bomb on a plane im pretty sure the rest of the passengers will beat him to death.

planes will continue to be blown up now and then, its impossible to be 100% effective in preventing it. not when its for all time and for the whole world.

what they WONT be able to do is hijack a plane with box cutters. if they cant kill every man woman and child on the plane, they wont take it. (well OK they can probably take it if all that are left are a few unticketed infants). it worked before because the rule was that you give in to hijackers. that rule has changed.

There's a lot more security than there has been before. I'm not saying it's more effective - but to say that "nothing" has been done is ludicrous.

I agree. :eek: :D

ya know, once someone starts assembling a bomb on a plane im pretty sure the rest of the passengers will beat him to death.

planes will continue to be blown up now and then, its impossible to be 100% effective in preventing it. not when its for all time and for the whole world.

what they WONT be able to do is hijack a plane with box cutters. if they cant kill every man woman and child on the plane, they wont take it. (well OK they can probably take it if all that are left are a few unticketed infants). it worked before because the rule was that you give in to hijackers. that rule has changed.
Exactly. With sky marshals and vigilant passengers and flight crew if someone started acting a fool in a plane you can bet one of the sky waitresses would make for the crash ax and by the time he/she got back it's likely the terrorist won't be conscious or possibly even alive.

Sue her for libel. Job done.

Won't the "activist judges" prevent that?

Won't the "activist judges" prevent that?
If nothing else, Big Brother would pardon her.

This is what Greg Palast has to say about Coulters latest book.


“Godless” is Gutless
Greg Palast
June 7th, 2006

Anne Coulter says we’re “Godless” — we “liberals.” And by “liberals,” she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants, out of Iraq, and out of the business of helping Big Business shoplift America.

It’s time someone took on the blonde bully.

Anne, I realize yesterday was special day for you, releasing your book on June 6 — 06-06-06.

Going through it, I must, admit, is heavy going: ‘Godless’ is a 300-page brick of solid meanness and pin-head hatreds packaged like a fashion magazine: Big Brother wears Prada.

You accuse those who don’t sign on to your list of prejudices as the Lord’s enemies. That’s not original, Anne: the Taliban thought of it before you and they too were partial to dressing in black.

You want to talk about Godless? OK, let’s go:

Would the Lord lie us into a war?

Would the Lord let thousands drown in New Orleans while chilling at a golf resort?

Would the Lord have removed tens of thousands of Black soldiers from the voter rolls as the Republican Party did in 2004?

You talk about being “Christian” — but with all your zeal to fire up electric chairs and Abrams tanks, you sound more like a Roman.

I suggest this, Anne: let’s debate. Set the time, set the place, and I’ll be there. Nose to nose, my facts versus your fanaticism.

But I know you don’t have the guts to do anything but lob idiocies from your electronic Fox-hole.

Your new book is called, “Godless.” Your autobiography should be called, “Gutless.”

This is what Greg Palast has to say about Coulters latest book.


Damn! :D

She will NEVER face him.

Wouldn't it be easier to report when Coulter didn't say something batshit and offensive?

It's kinda scary, but I think I agree with DK in that I think Coulter's listenership is mostly made up of liberals trying to see what fucked up thing she's going to say next. Though now and then I see someone repeat her without irony and I'm reminded of something P.T. Barnum once said...

Wouldn't it be easier to report when Coulter didn't say something batshit and offensive?

It's kinda scary, but I think I agree with DK in that I think Coulter's listenership is mostly made up of liberals trying to see what fucked up thing she's going to say next. Though now and then I see someone repeat her without irony and I'm reminded of something P.T. Barnum once said...
I have been on several other political forums, and I see far more posts about "what Ann Coulter said" on Democratic Underground than I have on any conservative forum.

Pretty consistent. Of course, there are many posts about Rosie O'Donnell, Al Franken, and a few others on the conservative boards.

I even think the majority of Ann's book sales are to Democrats who want to feel they are reading the next Mein Kampf and raise the alarm.

people say shes like the anti Michael Moore

thats bull at least what he says makes actual sense even if you don't agree with it.

Why do so many left-oriented people read Ann Coulter?


She's like the Id of the Right Wing.

She's like the Id of the Right Wing.
That's "Anus" not "Id".

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them revelling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much."

She used to be a stand-up comic. She took one look at Rush Limbaugh, and another look at Howard Stern, and decided to find a way to get more people to hate her than the two combined, through sarcasm, stinging wit, and irrational statements. I don't for one minute think she takes herself seriously. She is laughing all the way to the bank. Because she recognised that HATE SELLS. She recognised that there was this undercurrent of blood-thirsty hatefullness that runs through working class slobs and that they thrive on this stuff. She found a niche. Everyone hates her. Its making her rich as hell. =)

That's "Anus" not "Id".
Well, where ever the unconsciousness is located in a republican.

She used to be a stand-up comic. She took one look at Rush Limbaugh, and another look at Howard Stern, and decided to find a way to get more people to hate her than the two combined, through sarcasm, stinging wit, and irrational statements. I don't for one minute think she takes herself seriously. She is laughing all the way to the bank. Because she recognised that HATE SELLS. She recognised that there was this undercurrent of blood-thirsty hatefullness that runs through working class slobs and that they thrive on this stuff. She found a niche. Everyone hates her. Its making her rich as hell. =)
Damn, I never would have thought of that. I thought she was just some broad who had an idea that the widows were mooching off 9/11 and decided to go postal with it. Shows what I know about politics, eh?

Wouldn't it be easier to report when Coulter didn't say something batshit and offensive?

It's kinda scary, but I think I agree with DK in that I think Coulter's listenership is mostly made up of liberals trying to see what fucked up thing she's going to say next. Though now and then I see someone repeat her without irony and I'm reminded of something P.T. Barnum once said...

I second that emotion.

Damn, I never would have thought of that. I thought she was just some broad who had an idea that the widows were mooching off 9/11 and decided to go postal with it. Shows what I know about politics, eh?

....or standups. LOL

I gotta admit, I use this bullshit technique myself once in a while, ok, maybe more like most of the time, but I take the other bent...I say wacked out extremist liberal-type things that get people all riled up. It drives the people who take me seriously NUTS, and its so fun to watch. In truth, I am a "Left-Leaning College State", which is pretty moderate.

She used to be a stand-up comic. She took one look at Rush Limbaugh, and another look at Howard Stern, and decided to find a way to get more people to hate her than the two combined, through sarcasm, stinging wit, and irrational statements. I don't for one minute think she takes herself seriously. She is laughing all the way to the bank. Because she recognised that HATE SELLS. She recognised that there was this undercurrent of blood-thirsty hatefullness that runs through working class slobs and that they thrive on this stuff. She found a niche. Everyone hates her. Its making her rich as hell. =)

The danger in that case is that she ends up believing all her own bullshit, like L. Ron Hubbard did.

People have been musing in the thread as to why "liberals" bother reading her tripe at all. For my part, it was due to the CBC article that I posted the thread to begin with - but more importantly, it's good to know your (ideological) enemy - or at least keep tabs on 'em, no matter how stupid, or outright mentally, spiritually, and ethically diseased they happen to be.

I don't see this as a rehash of all things Coulter; this is the new shit. And it frankly reeks. It seemed worth mentioning on NSG.

Does this count as attacking non-public figures, and thus libel?

Damn, is she still alive? People dont listen to her still do they? Shes got the perfect combo of insanity and retardation to make the right-wing position even crazier and dumber than it already is.

Someone, please, outlaw these idiots. She's almost as bad as Fred Phelps.

Does this count as attacking non-public figures, and thus libel?
One has hopes.

What an evil bitch. :upyours:

Damn, is she still alive? People dont listen to her still do they? Shes got the perfect combo of insanity and retardation to make the right-wing position even crazier and dumber than it already is.

And for that, a toast to Anne Coulter! I can hear the roar of people swinging left like a heard of buffalo running from a BBQ truck!

Cheers!