PDA

View Full Version : Sometimes the truth hurts


Ken King
06-09-2006, 11:19 PM
<p align="center"><img border="0" src="http://somd.com/news/kingscorner/images/king-head.GIF" alt="King's Corner" width="336" height="143"></p>

Ann Coulter has certainly stirred the pot of debate recently. Her new book, while possibly offensive to some, is refreshing in the sense that it is unbridled and free of the political correctness our society seems to demand. Political Correctness, for me, is a concept that is only demanded to be adhered to when one is being lambasted with facts and doesn’t want to or simply refuses to face the truth or reality of our world. It is something that might have a place and time depending on circumstances but it should not be controlling of who and what we are. I applaud Ann’s frankness, even if her words can be seen as hurtful to those being spoken of.

For those that think she went too far or overstepped the boundaries of decency you have to remember that this is one of the essences of our Bill of Rights. Ann is doing nothing more then exercising a protected freedom that guarantees her the ability to say what she believes as long as it is accurate and truthful. I think she truly sees the activities of these women as being about how certain people are exploited by others with the sole agenda of bashing our current President and showing him in the worst possible light.

Furthermore, those being exploited, known as the New Jersey Four (NJ4), are Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg, and they are not new to the limelight of the public. The eagerly stepped forward demanding answers to why 9/11 happened, as was their right, but once they were exposed by the media they set themselves up to become an instrument for others to use, and used they have been. First, if I’m not mistaken, it was NOW that initiated their molding, that turned them into spokeswomen shortly after the tragedy of 9/11 and got them chanting the NOW agenda. Then it was Presidential hopeful, John Kerry, that advanced their exploitation when he courted them to become part of his campaign machine feeling that he could capitalize upon their pain and suffering to secure his bid by garnering the nation’s sympathy and compassion of the losses of 9/11. It probably did help him somewhat but it wasn’t enough.

I see these women as being no more then pawns to a completely political process, one in which they don’t understand that they are being used by others to facilitate agendas that they might not truly comprehend. It’s an abusive behavior that those in politics decry as demeaning but are ever so read to exploit when it is to their benefit. They have been doing this for so long that I suspect that they rarely have a word to say that is of their own creation, they are now nothing more then mouth-pieces for others that continue with the exploitation.

The messages of the NJ4 contend that the events of 9/11 are the sole responsibility and fault of Bush and his administration, an administration that was in its infancy when the attacks took place. They further contend that the administration negligently ignored prior warnings as to the imminence of the impending attack and that Bush and his people should have known the specifics of what was about to happen.

Well, to a certain extent I agree with the NJ4 in that contention. I absolutely agree that it should be the function of our government to thwart those that seek to unleash savage brutality like what was set upon our nation that tragic September morning. It is after all one of the few express functions of our government and is clearly stated in the Constitution as a specific responsibility of the government to provide for the common defense, a function that woefully failed resulting in approximately 3,000 fatalities of our fellow citizens in just a few short moments. It is completely obvious that our nation’s government failed in performing one of its primary and basic duties.

But the idea that the blame must be laid solely upon the feet of the current administration is one that I have a problem getting on board with. For me I believe that those responsible for our safety had fallen asleep at the wheel years before President Bush came to office and that the attack was successful due to the failure to understand the dangers of not remaining constantly vigilant to those that seek to bring death and destruction to our nation.

For years our intelligence activities had been dwindling because the “red menace” of the Soviet Union had collapsed and was no longer the threat it once was. It is apparent that those tasked with the oversight of our intelligence activities wrongly surmised that there was now no longer a great need to maintain an aggressive, robust, active and effective intelligence mechanism. Thusly our human intelligence efforts had become almost nonexistent as we relied almost singularly on signal intelligence, as a consequence our ability to learn of impending efforts was severely diminished. Add to that our reactions, or should I say lack there of, to prior terrorist attacks against our embassies, assets and people that had been mostly ignored by not responding in a manner that demonstrated that we would not fall as silent victims was in my opinion a clear message to our enemies that we were weak and nothing to fear. This in my mind validated to these criminals that they could conduct continued attacks as others had done and is what I believe allowed for the brazen escalation that eventually led to the 9/11 murders.

If one looks back prior to 9/11 you will remember that we had legislatively hampered the various investigative activities of our government instead of manifesting cooperative effort and the sharing of information amongst them. We created, through agency segregation, the inability to provide for a comprehensive structure to provide for our security. The CIA, DIA, and FBI operated independently and didn’t share the data each held. So the pieces to the puzzle may have been at hand but those hands were hidden in different pockets. Some of these inadequacies were immediately identified and are being corrected by the acts of the Bush administration in response to the reality of today’s world. But acting after the fact is never satisfactory and even more frustrating when we now know that the previous administration had much of the same knowledge and information in its possession and did little to nothing in response simply because it did nothing to correct what it knew was wrong.

Had the previous administration been working to correct the intelligence deficiencies as had been regularly communicated to them, which is evident as is shown in this report from 1997 pertaining to intelligence challenges of the 21st Century (http://www.dtic.mil/ndp/FullDoc2.pdf), we might have not suffered as we did on 9/11. Had those in power heeded the need for continued effort and change we might have been in a position to prevent these acts that, by all evidence to date, had been being prepared for as long as 18 months prior to the execution of the dastardly plot.

So while the NJ4 and others throw blame at Bush and Bush alone I will not do so as it is painfully obvious to me that he was nothing more then unfortunate when he inherited our broken government. He was handed a system that, to be honest, was inadequate to the needs of the nation and he should not be held at fault for that. The actual fault lies with those that craft the laws and oversee its functioning. If you need to blame someone, rather then fix the problem; focus on those serving on the committees and specifically those that have become long term fixtures that have directly caused or allowed our capabilities to erode. They are the true culprits that placed us in the position we found ourselves in and they are the ones that should account for why they allowed for it to happen.

Whether you agree or not I say we have been fortunate as a whole to have at this time and day a leader that isn’t afraid to make the unpopular decisions to correct our deficiencies or to act against those that dare threaten our security and way of life. Furthermore I can only hope that when the time comes up again we will select a replacement with equal fortitude to continue along this path, one that will make the decisions regardless of how unpopular they are and one that will ignore those that seem so willing to concede our safety and freedom because of the cost it requires in lives or how we are seen by others around the globe.

Railroad
06-10-2006, 07:06 AM
Whether you agree or not I say we have been fortunate as a whole to have at this time and day a leader that isn’t afraid to make the unpopular decisions to correct our deficiencies or to act against those that dare threaten our security and way of life. Furthermore I can only hope that when the time comes up again we will select a replacement with equal fortitude to continue along this path, one that will make the decisions regardless of how unpopular they are and one that will ignore those that seem so willing to concede our safety and freedom because of the cost it requires in lives or how we are seen by others around the globe.

:yay: I concur.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Larry Gude
06-10-2006, 07:50 AM
I see these women as being no more then pawns to a completely political process, one in which they don’t understand that they are being used by others to facilitate agendas that they might not truly comprehend.

...having checked them out on a few videos and having seen them on the tube over the past, it is not readily evident to me that these ladies are 'pawns'.

Who among us, upon becoming something of a public figure because of some grand public event, say, 9/11, rescuing a drowning person, hitting the lottery, whatever, would have trouble smelling the coffee when approached by a political party?

On the one hand, it is common to hear of people going into interviews with the media with an open mind and ending up feeling that they were used or had their words distorted. That's one thing. It is the press, not a specific group; a union, a corporation or a political party. When you choose door #3 and it says 'DNC Headquarters' you know what you are doing.

So, naive? Pawns? I don't think so.

They are in the public domain PRECISELY because of their personal politics and PRECISELY for the reasons Ann offers; they can't be readily taken to task. Notice how the response has been nothing BUT what Ann says; You aren't allowed to question their motives? Not one person on the left has said "well, that's not true and here is why'. We are left with the lynch pin of leftists politics; the self evident. This need not be defended because everyone knows...that needs no clarification because everyone knows...

Remember the aftermath of Mogadishu? Clinton did a ceremony to honor the fallen, especially Randy Shuggart and Gary Gordon, the two guys who went in, alone, to secure the second chopper crash site. If memory serves, their loved ones, when meeting Clinton face to face, were not very friendly and held him responsible, as CIC, for not supporting the mission properly and pressuring it inappropriately which lead to their loss, needless, and negligent in their eye's. They confronted him in person and directly and that was it.

Unlike the 9/11 widows, these people did not become household names. Their focus was on their loss, not on becoming political activists.

Like the 9/11 widows, is there ANY doubt how the left would have treated them if they chose to make the talk show circuit and GOP commercials claiming Bill Clinton killed their husbands?

They chose, CHOSE differently than the 9/11 ladies and the 9/11 ladies are being called on it. Can't stand the heat?

Good post, Ken.

willie
06-10-2006, 09:22 AM
WASHINGTON Jun 9, 2006 (AP)— A member of the Sept. 11 commission on Friday lashed out at conservative pundit Ann Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain.

A true statement that no matter how crass, it is still a true statement that they cannot deny. Who were they before their husbands were killed? Nobody.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

7:23 a.m. June 7, 2006
In her book, Coulter said, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”

That is where she should have kept her mouth shut. That one statement took an otherwise justified attack, down to the level of an Al Sharpton slander.

Ken King
06-10-2006, 12:08 PM
Larry, I agree that they made their choice as to how they aligned themselves politically, but my use of the term "pawn" was simply to mean that they are expendable after serving their "master's" purpose. For me, I don't suspect that they are fully aware that when they no longer can serve any further purpose for the "party" they will readily be tossed aside without even an afterthought.

Ken King
06-10-2006, 12:19 PM
ASSOCIATED PRESS

7:23 a.m. June 7, 2006
In her book, Coulter said, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”

That is where she should have kept her mouth shut. That one statement took an otherwise justified attack, down to the level of an Al Sharpton slander.
Willie,

For me this is the beauty of what she has done, simply speaking her mind in a no-holds-barred fashion. It is so much easier to understand where one is coming from when they don't try to sugar-coat everything or placate everyone. And I really don’t think you can compare this to Sharpton like slander when it is merely one’s expression of the truth. It wasn't nice but, thankfully, as of yet we have no laws requiring us to be nice to one another. Not to mention it definately got the fur flying.

spritehoney
06-10-2006, 05:26 PM
Who is Ann Coulter?

Ken King
06-10-2006, 05:34 PM
Who is Ann Coulter?
:killingme Are you for real? She is a political pundit. Here is her site. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Homesick
06-10-2006, 06:07 PM
Who is Ann Coulter?

You don't want to know, really.

willie
06-10-2006, 06:36 PM
Who is Ann Coulter?
Can you picture a pissed-off Pit Bull with rabies in a mini skirt?

spritehoney
06-12-2006, 04:11 PM
:killingme Are you for real? She is a political pundit. Here is her site. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Oh! she's attractive.....and smart? Oh my..is this part of the reason everyone is angry?

spritehoney
06-12-2006, 04:12 PM
Can you picture a pissed-off Pit Bull with rabies in a mini skirt?

what's a pundit?

willie
06-12-2006, 04:17 PM
what's a pundit?

A pissed-off Pit Bull with rabies in a mini skirt with a political opinion.

Larry Gude
06-12-2006, 04:23 PM
A pissed-off Pit Bull with rabies in a mini skirt with a political opinion.


...that's a good 'un!

spritehoney
06-12-2006, 04:27 PM
A pissed-off Pit Bull with rabies in a mini skirt with a political opinion.


Oh Willie, I don't think we've met, I'm spritehoney, I have no political opinions.

Ken King
06-12-2006, 04:34 PM
what's a pundit?
Pundit = one who gives opinions in an authoritative manner.

Bruzilla
06-12-2006, 07:00 PM
I think that these women knew, and know, exactly what they are doing and that Coulter is right when she says they are enjoying it. Before 9/11 they were just four women who outside of their own social and business lives (if they had any) and the IRS, didn't exist. No one cared who they were, what they thought, or that they even existed. Then came the deaths of their husbands and suddenly people are noticing them, people are asking them for their opinions, people are asking them for their views. They've gone from being a nobody to being somebody, as did a lot of survivors and relatives of 9/11. All of these people had their 15 minutes of fame.

What's different about these women was the 15 minutes wasn't enough. While most other "victims" went back to their pre-9/11 lives, some didn't. Some live in a constant state of fear or paranoia, and some, like these gals, seem to have become addicted to the limelight of the media, a desire for attention that's fueled by those who want to use them against Bush. They'll never admit it, but I would bet they get a real thrill everytime they go on TV, get interviewed, get asked for a "statement", or hear about their groups exploits mentioned on TV. When that happens they get to reaffirm that they are still "somebodies" rather than their pre-9/11 "nobodies". And people like that don't put up with all the media's BS unless they're enjoying it, which was Coulter's point.

So I see these women as being fully complicit in their being "used" by the Liberals. I would also bet that they are willing to sacrifice credibility for the opportunity to grab a little more spotlight when the opportunity arises. The thought of retuning to being nobodies probably scares them more than anything, and they're willing to grab onto anyone's coattails if it means avoiding that fate.

somd whisper
06-20-2006, 10:21 PM
:yay: I concur.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


you got my vote too

BuddyLee
06-21-2006, 12:14 AM
Finally got around to reading this.

Good piece Ken.:yay::yay::yay:

luthersomd
06-24-2006, 01:33 PM
A pissed-off Pit Bull with rabies in a mini skirt with a political opinion. I love it!! Sorry it took me so long to find your quote. You nailed her!!! :killingme

residentofcre
06-26-2006, 12:08 PM
I think that these women knew, and know, exactly what they are doing and that Coulter is right when she says they are enjoying it. Before 9/11 they were just four women who outside of their own social and business lives (if they had any) and the IRS, didn't exist. No one cared who they were, what they thought, or that they even existed. Then came the deaths of their husbands and suddenly people are noticing them, people are asking them for their opinions, people are asking them for their views. They've gone from being a nobody to being somebody, as did a lot of survivors and relatives of 9/11. All of these people had their 15 minutes of fame.

What's different about these women was the 15 minutes wasn't enough. While most other "victims" went back to their pre-9/11 lives, some didn't. Some live in a constant state of fear or paranoia, and some, like these gals, seem to have become addicted to the limelight of the media, a desire for attention that's fueled by those who want to use them against Bush. They'll never admit it, but I would bet they get a real thrill everytime they go on TV, get interviewed, get asked for a "statement", or hear about their groups exploits mentioned on TV. When that happens they get to reaffirm that they are still "somebodies" rather than their pre-9/11 "nobodies". And people like that don't put up with all the media's BS unless they're enjoying it, which was Coulter's point.

So I see these women as being fully complicit in their being "used" by the Liberals. I would also bet that they are willing to sacrifice credibility for the opportunity to grab a little more spotlight when the opportunity arises. The thought of retuning to being nobodies probably scares them more than anything, and they're willing to grab onto anyone's coattails if it means avoiding that fate.

Now I don't agree with a lot of Coulter stuff but I definitely agree with what you are saying here....

It's easy to step out of the spotlight... if you want to...

luthersomd
06-30-2006, 09:09 PM
Now I don't agree with a lot of Coulter stuff but I definitely agree with what you are saying here....

It's easy to step out of the spotlight... if you want to...Becky....there are a lot of good women who are keeping track of your comments here....don't be surprised if you don't have to defend those comments on the campaign trail!! :stupid:

residentofcre
06-30-2006, 09:13 PM
Becky....there are a lot of good women who are keeping track of your comments here....don't be surprised if you don't have to defend those comments on the campaign trail!! :stupid:

I hope I have the opportunity....

residentofcre
06-30-2006, 09:19 PM
You know... If you look at the numbers... it makes sense.

Thousands of people died that day.... There had to be more than four rocky marriages.

These women could have pulled the spotlight off of themselves... others did... but they haven't.... it makes sense doesn't it?

luthersomd
07-02-2006, 01:32 PM
You know... If you look at the numbers... it makes sense.

Thousands of people died that day.... There had to be more than four rocky marriages.

These women could have pulled the spotlight off of themselves... others did... but they haven't.... it makes sense doesn't it?NO!!

Tom Sawyer
07-03-2006, 08:56 AM
Ann Coulter is the Republicans answer to the Snakehead. James Carville.

Much better looking of course with her long blonde hair. Although a bit too skinny for my taste.

She makes a living off being controversial, and her conservative leanings mostly make good sense. At last they do to me, and a lot of other Republicans. Sometimes she is a little too much, but then so is Carville.Its the nature of their work , when you push the limit you will cross over on occasion.

As for the 911 New Jersey girls. they have stretched their 15 minutes out for much too long. I dont agree they have shown pleasure in their husbands deaths, but they certainly enjoy the spotlight. They reached their Peters Principle limit long ago and now should just shut up before they make real fools of themselves.

residentofcre
07-03-2006, 03:43 PM
NO!!


Ok... based on your answer I went back and read her quotes again.

That's one of the things I like about this forum... I learn so much from the people here....

:coffee:

ylexot
07-03-2006, 05:23 PM
I dont agree they have shown pleasure in their husbands deaths, but they certainly enjoy the spotlight.
If they are enjoying the spotlight and they are in the spotlight only because of the deaths of their husbands, it is not a huge leap to say that they are enjoying the deaths of their husbands. :shrug:

luthersomd
07-03-2006, 10:15 PM
Ann Coulter is the Republicans answer to the Snakehead. James Carville.

Much better looking of course with her long blonde hair. Although a bit too skinny for my taste.

She makes a living off being controversial, and her conservative leanings mostly make good sense. At last they do to me, and a lot of other Republicans. Sometimes she is a little too much, but then so is Carville.Its the nature of their work , when you push the limit you will cross over on occasion.

As for the 911 New Jersey girls. they have stretched their 15 minutes out for much too long. I dont agree they have shown pleasure in their husbands deaths, but they certainly enjoy the spotlight. They reached their Peters Principle limit long ago and now should just shut up before they make real fools of themselves. I don't agree. James Carville is not quite my cup of tea but he is not in Anne's category, Shes more like Michael Moore and both of them are scoundrels that pander to the worst in all of us in order to sell books and films. :wench:

luthersomd
07-03-2006, 10:20 PM
Ok... based on your answer I went back and read her quotes again.

That's one of the things I like about this forum... I learn so much from the people here....

:coffee:Becky...If you can get elected form the Republican base then stick with Coulter. If you need Independents and Democrats, you better get away from her real quick! But don't do it unless you believe!

willie
07-04-2006, 07:26 AM
I don't agree. James Carville is not quite my cup of tea but he is not in Anne's category, Shes more like Michael Moore and both of them are scoundrels that pander to the worst in all of us in order to sell books and films. :wench:
Spoken like a true, narrow minded Bush hater. She is very much like James Carville and neither one of them have anything in common with Michael Moore. Coulter made an 'over the line' statement that could possibly be true but I don't think it should have been said. Moore is a low life that manufactures "facts", re-writes history worse than the Japanese have done, deceives wounded soldiers appearing in his "documentary" and in general, he isn't able to tell the truth. Pick a better comparison next time.

Cat4everrr
07-05-2006, 07:23 PM
I think she is a very mean person albeit smart and pretty. She's a former lawyer. Nowa days you can catch her on Sean Hannity type programs.

Ken King
07-06-2006, 07:27 AM
I think she is a very mean person albeit smart and pretty. She's a former lawyer. Nowa days you can catch her on Sean Hannity type programs.
I am sure she is still a lawyer, nothing former about it. I think she is still the editor of the Michigan Law Review. And I wouldn't say she is mean, it's more like she won't just sit quietly by while someone is blowing smoke up her ass. If she knows you are wrong or stupid, she'll tell you straight up - nothing mean in that, at least for me.

luthersomd
07-08-2006, 02:33 PM
Spoken like a true, narrow minded Bush hater. She is very much like James Carville and neither one of them have anything in common with Michael Moore. Coulter made an 'over the line' statement that could possibly be true but I don't think it should have been said. Moore is a low life that manufactures "facts", re-writes history worse than the Japanese have done, deceives wounded soldiers appearing in his "documentary" and in general, he isn't able to tell the truth. Pick a better comparison next time. My opinion is the same....you are entitled to yours. Coulter is a loud mouthed ##### who lives for the all mighty dollar at the expense of others. And I am not a Bush hater so stick that were the sun don't shine!! :wench:

Tom Sawyer
07-08-2006, 09:18 PM
I was just wondering at who's expense she gets these dollars.

She is little different fromO'Reilly or Hannity or Colmes or Dan Rather. certainly she makes money with her comments, but don't they all?

Coulter may be a loudmouth as you say, but what is wrong with having a Conservative loud mouth for a change instead of listening to Katie Couric or Eleonor Clift> (OOOH --Spit_) That name leaves a bad taste in my mouth. One of Clintons knee girls.

hank79
08-14-2006, 04:10 PM
"I applaud Ann’s frankness"

I applaud your use of the word Frankness after the name Ann, for a moment I thought you had coined a new phrase meaning of or pertaining the the qualities embodied by Ann Frank.

vraiblonde
08-14-2006, 05:00 PM
"I applaud Ann’s frankness"

I applaud your use of the word Frankness after the name Ann, for a moment I thought you had coined a new phrase meaning of or pertaining the the qualities embodied by Ann Frank.
okay

FireBrand
08-25-2006, 08:24 PM
Who is Ann Coulter?

Coulter is just another garden variety VRAI clone.
They Rule !!!:cool:

vraiblonde
08-25-2006, 09:45 PM
Coulter is just another garden variety VRAI clone.
Often imitated, never duplicated :diva:

Pete
08-25-2006, 09:47 PM
Coulter is just another garden variety VRAI clone.
They Rule !!!:cool:
Vrai is much hotter. Everytime I see her I scream like a chick rock star groupy. :yahoo::hot: :faint:

saltydog
09-06-2006, 11:10 PM
According to the new Bushspeak, which would you apply to the NJ4? Everyone who has a contrarion opinion must fit into this box.

I am unable to put them in any of these bins, Ken can you help?

Ken King
09-07-2006, 07:38 AM
According to the new Bushspeak, which would you apply to the NJ4? Everyone who has a contrarion opinion must fit into this box.

I am unable to put them in any of these bins, Ken can you help?
I would say that the NJ4 are women that suffered a tragedy and they are being exploited by those with political agendas. Their pain and sorrow was redirected and channeled for a specific intent that wasn’t of their making. That is why I called them pawns earlier.

LadyLape
11-07-2006, 10:15 AM
I would say that the NJ4 are women that suffered a tragedy and they are being exploited by those with political agendas. Their pain and sorrow was redirected and channeled for a specific intent that wasn’t of their making. That is why I called them pawns earlier.



What the hell is NJ4?

BadGirl
11-07-2006, 10:18 AM
What the hell is NJ4?The New Jersey Four. Four of the most vocal women who lost husbands in the World Trade Center attack.

ylexot
11-07-2006, 10:19 AM
What the hell is NJ4?
What is this thread about? Read the first post.

RoseRed
11-07-2006, 10:29 AM
What the hell is NJ4?
First post and swearing already.

RadioPatrol
01-12-2007, 08:38 PM
Nice Thread to find .... Ann C is a real Pistol and the NJ4 are like Cindy S these days - used as a tool for political means - how about talk show host Laura Ingraham ? she can be a bit controversial - author of Shutup and Sing

cdsulhoff
03-08-2007, 03:13 PM
Come nestled next to a nice beaver..


SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.