Coulter & Hannity...pretty Embarassing regardless of race, creed, color or Politics
 

Linkee

This guy has the largest audience out there and his methods are the equivalent of a third grader.

Why did you put Colmes in the title?
What did he have to do with this?

Changed it as you replied...TYPO

Aah, ok.

Ann is just being her usual queen bitch self.

Several men from Clelands platoon have come forward and said something to the effect, and this is going off of memory, That they were not partying at the time, the grenade did not come from any of them, it was from an outside source, and Cleland saved their lives by picking it up in an attempt to get rid of it

This guy shapes American political thought...for people who dont care to think at least.
When he has an intelligent guest he railroads them and they cant get any thought out.
To mock a man who lost three limbs (most likely in his case lying about details) in Vietnam in effort to support GWB is spineless.

Is there something wrong with that woman?

Only her Psychologist knows, what, for sure.

If that is true, as seems likely, then I am once again reading an article and underestimating what a truly vile human being Coulter is. I've got to get out of that habit.

Like all political portrayals (on both sides) it's unbalanced and disregards the fact that his actions four days prior to the grenade explosion garnered him a Silver Star at Khe Sahn. Certainly the Democrats and the Cleland camp prefer to portray losing the limbs in a grand heroic manner which does not seem to be the case.

The fact is Cleland is a war hero. Not for having lost limbs but for his actions at other times during his career. There is a bit of dishonesty from all sides in this.





From the Atlanta Constitution:

"While disembarking from a transport helicopter [on April 8 near Khe Sanh], Capt. Cleland reached for a grenade he believed had become dislodged from his web gear. Later it was discovered that the grenade belonged to a young soldier new to the theater. That soldier had improperly prepared the grenade pin for easy detonation and had dropped it while coming off the helicopter. The grenade exploded and severely injured Capt. Cleland."

Here's a first-hand account:

"On April 4*, 1968, Price was with the Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines.
"Charlie Company was opening up Route 9 going into Khe Sanh, near the demilitarized zone between the then-separate North and South Vietnams, and had secured a mountaintop.
"Cleland, a captain in the Army Signal Corps, and his team flew by helicopter to the hill that Price and Charlie Company held to set up a radio relay tower.
"When the helicopter landed, Cleland and his soldiers jumped off and the helicopter immediately ascended.
"Then there was an explosion.
"Price, who was digging a foxhole, thought the blast might have been an enemy mortar round. It was common for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese to shoot at landing helicopters, Price said.
"This time, a soldier was severely wounded. It was Cleland and he had lost an arm and a leg. His other leg was badly mangled."

Ann Coulter is a disgrace to intelligent discourse. Fox News disgraces itself by repeatedly inviting her to spew her venom on its network "news" shows.

Cleland responds to Coulters slander.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=42979

So the whole problem is that she called Cleland's wound accidental?

Also what does Hannity have to do with this?

Cleland is an asshole and just because you were wounded doesn't make you immune to criticism. Hell he had a fund raiser by Jane Fonda, I bet the Vietnam vets would love to know that one.

No the whole problem is that she denegrates Cleland and his service. She pretty much implies it was HIS stupid mistake and that he allowed one of HIS grenades to fall. And then she says that he is falsly applying the hero status to himself. First, he does not call himself a hero. Those who know him and know what he has done correctly apply that moniker to him. What he did was heroic because he volunteered for a dangerous combat mission which he unfortunately didn't make it too. And his actions quite possible saved serveral servicemens lives.

This information is easily available and has been available for years. Ann Coulter touts her ability to use Lexis Nexis yet was unable to find these simple truths? No, she is outright slandering a fine american. She knows what happened and she knows what regard Cleland has in the Veterans community. She just takes GREAT pleasure in destroying innocent, good men.

If anyone deserves the succubus moniker, Ann does.

Cleland doesn't try to hide his record. Kerry had a passing association with Jane, a woman who has since apologized over and over for what she calls a deception. Kerry's organizational association is well known and he still rates high among veterans. What he was doing in that group is trying to end a war they were suffering in. Nothing to denegrate there for a Veteran.
For Jane, her only goal was to try and end the war, not see americans suffer. She was used and duped.
I'm not trying to say what she did was ok, but she didn't do what she did with any kind of negative intents for americans.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Fonda should have been tried for treason. What she did in North Vietnam and to our POW's there is unforgivable.

But thats a different subject for a different and pointless thread, and one you would look very foolish in if you take the above stance, so lets just drop it.

As for Cleland, exactly how he was injured seems in dispute, but I'm willing to accept his version. I'd love to see if Coulter has a source for hers, I might even try to email her for the hell of it.

What Cleland does after the war, much like Kerry, is what bothers me.

As for Kerry, if he thought erroding the support for the troops at home, with fake wittnesses and false testimony was done to save US servicemen lives, he is even dumber then you think GWB is.

I find it ridiculous that people find "anti-war" to be "anti-american".
This is a disease of the mind, like HIV or something.
If wars were not called wars...but called Empirical outings or Domination conventions...I wonder how many people would support them? Probably more than we have now supporting this war. Call a spade a spade. We have never fought a war at home....only "WARS" to protect our interests and the principle of Democracy.

"willing to accept his version"... It's not his version, it's the fact. I wonder, Ustwo, if Gallileo was a Democrat, would you ask for a second opinion when he told you the Earth was round?

Vietnam was a mistake, as the vast majority of Americans would agree. Cleland and Kerry really have the most defensible positions on Vietnam: They were against it (again, like a majority of Americans), but they also served there, on the ground, and didn't dodge out of it.

Also, I think the article was by Hannity, it was just posted on Coulter's website (probably because no self-respecting editorial page would print it)

Funny how "Treason" is being thrown around in today's time.

I don't see any significant response from him here. He says he volunteered for a combat mission, that does not mean he was on one when the grenade exploded. He then goes off on a tangent about Bush and the Alabama National Guard.

It is all ridiculous.
Whether he blew himself up to be discharged or not.
He was THERE. He was decorated.
You dont see any president in the USA putting the uniform on for political reasons.
This is what this is all about.

I believe your account you gave says it. He was preparing to go on the mission, as the helicopter they stepped out of was taking off, he saw a grenade on the ground with no pin. He bent over to pick it up and ultimately shielded his fellow soldiers from a blast that could have killed many people.

According to the account I found, he thought it had fallen off his web belt and was picking it up. Nothing about doing it to shield his fellow soldiers and the like as his camp and others like to insinuate. He was not yet on a combat mission but in preparation to go on one.

It's really only nitpicking on both sides. Does Cleland play up his war wounds? Yep. Does the author of the posted article point that out? Yep. Does the author of the article imply that Cleland isn't a war hero? Yep. Is every bit of this wrong on some level? Absolutely.

Those berating the author of the article are overlooking Cleland's exaggeration and those berating Cleland are overlooking the rest of his record.

I don't really know what you mean by "putting the uniform on for political reasons" but certainly politicians have and will continue to use their military service for political pandering/gain. From Washington to Bush/Kerry they all do it.

What exactly, has Cleland exagerated?

I don't believe he is playing up his war wounds. I think he does demand a measure of respect for what he left on the battle field for this country. Regardless of whether or not he was in battle or preparing for it, he volunteered for a combat mission that ultimately got him crippled.

The author of this article has been successful -- no one on this thread is talking about Bush.

Exactly yet GWB doesnt really have the credentials to use his experience.

Like 'Seretogis" has said..this is BEAT.

You're right. All we have to do is unnecessarially attack some innocent disabled veteran to get the mark off of Bush.
Slander anyone you can, just get the spotlight off of someone who can't stand up to scrutiny.

[edit] I find it Ironic the woman wrote a book about "slander" yet that is the only mode of communication she can successfully garner attention with. And she garners an assload of attention.

The way all the press releases are written it makes him look like his limbs were lost during a battle. Obviously the story of unknowingly picking up a live grenade he thought he had dropped doesn't play as well as the candidate who "gave three limbs serving his country in Vietnam". Certainly not false, but it gives the impression of a heroic act of bravery rather than a bad accident.

Yet he doesnt don the uniform and go flying onto aircraft carriers.
That is the issue.
OK gone for good this time.

Trotting out a disabled veteran to bash a sitting President's military service with no real evidence of impropriety is pretty appalling in itself. I guess that's ok though because anything that will help get rid of the evil George Bush is justified.

He most certainly plays up his military ties. If you're gonna fault GWB for doing it, why not fault Max? Bush served and according to all military records completed his requirements enabling him to be honorably discharged. He has every right to wear the uniform.

ok, here's one way of settling bush's military experience/where he was/what he did: RELEASE THE FREAKING RECORDS...as every other president has done. They normally aren't a sealed record, ya know..while you're at it, release the records from his governorship of Texas...

There, the issue is back to bush now..

They did.

his entire military record?

No just the pay stubs and some dental records which prove..... that he at least accepted the pay and benefits for the contracted service that he didn't perform for this nation.

Yeah, that's what i thought...
and if i recall, it was a fairly blurry page..
i'm talking about his whole record, ya know..like everyone else did...think he has something to hide?

Whoever wrote that article is clearly mentally ill.

As for Bush and his national guard duty - I couldnt really care less if he dodged it or not, it is what he is doing as president now that matters, now what he did when he was a young guy.

Bush's entire military records will be released. Once the ink has dried.

And all the Bush- bashers will see that the reason nobody ever saw him report for guard duty in Alabama is because he was flying secret combat missions in Vietnam.

Must I always do your homework.

Maybe you should do a little bit of homework yourself.

In those reams of documents:
Bush has not released his retirement points records, which are recorded on an attendance basis. He has not released his attendance records nor has he had any credible eye witnesses who can attest that they served with him in Alabama.

Anyone can say they are releasing all their records, until that action has been verified, words mean jack shit.

They said all, you say not all, blah blah blah, try giving me a source.

Jane Fonda should be tried for treason?

And here was I thinking this was a serious debate!

Again, I think we should try Bush on his record as "president", not on whether or not he did his national guard duty thirty years ago - whether he did or dint is a non-issue to me, who he was then, he is no longer.

Ustwo is right, that bitch should hang for providing aid and comfort to the enemy, and for needlessly and purposely putting our troops to death and in harm's way. What she did is just atrocious and one can only hope that she gets hers in the end.
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm

(edited)oops, misread post above, sorry**

And now we're on Jane Fonda somehow?

I agree, how did we get on Hanoi Jane?

Anyway, that part of the story is false.

From further down on the snopes page:

I'm still waiting for what Sean Hannity has to do with this.

I'm still trying to figure out who wrote the piece. Did Ann Coulter write it or did Sean Hannity write it? I couldn't find an author's name on it anywhere. Am I blind?

I've got a better idea. How about instead of all this campaigning and "who did what, when, and with who" and other political bullshit, we get the candidates onstage, have them drop their pants, and whoever has the biggest dick wins. Think of the time, money, and headaches this would save. It would be about as relevant as all the posturing the candidates do.

I'd put my money on Ann Coulter. That's not libelous, is it?

But then, I'm sure we'd be hearing about penis enlargement scandals.

Once again, I'm pretty sure Hannity wrote it, and it was posted on Coulter's website (because it couldn't get printed anywhere else, perhaps)

Is there anything right with that woman?

I think not.

Her vicious hate mongering and innuendo is no different then what I see ELECTED representatives doing on the left.

Its ok to call GWB a deserter (punishable by death) or AWOL (by imprisonment), even in the halls of congress, for no other reason then to cast doubt in the less informed American eyes, despite all this having been settled long before by the NYT of all places. And its not just this issue, but dozens. Hell Bush's people do one add showing the Kerry has received more special interest money then ANY other senator (true) and he comes out saying how all GWB has are smears and not his (Kerry's) great message. Never mind they have been smearing, lying and saying anything and EVERYTHING bad about GWB they could for the last year trying to get the nomination. The same party that had a cartoon of GWB pushing an old lady down the stairs on the DNC web site, has no business whining about anything done to them.

Ann Coulter is a private citizen who struck a cord with millions of people who just want to hear someone, anyone, on there side fighting back. Perhaps if some of the democrats weren't so blatant in their smears and lies, people would not feel the desire to read her books, articles, and listen to her interviews.

I doubt Anthrax "strikes a cord" with millions of people. Tens of thousands, maybe 100k. But not millions The woman is vile, evil, a serial liar and the definition of the word "hypocrite"

Her book sales are the way they are because she gets massive help from rich conservative backers and book clubs who will do anything to see a conservative book rise to the top of the best seller charts. Her book has the asterix for abnormally large bulk purchases on it every single week.
And she enjoys a measure of national attention because she has friends in high places who keep placing her in front of the camera, like Sean Hannity.

It's funny when you listen to Al Franken in interviews. He talks about when he was writing his book, "Lying Liars ....." that he went to Republican friends and asked them what they thought.

He says a majority wouldn't say much about anyone until he got to Ann Coulter. He says every one of them said, "She's a nutcase".

I truly wish someone would tell me how we are a better country when our 2 parties are so busy destroying the other and not doing what we elect them to do.

It boggles my mind.

Of course in Washington's farewell address he talked how partisan politics would destroy our country. Took 200+ years but it looks like the partisan politics not only has destroyed our country but is infecting the rest of the world. Instead of leading by example, we lead by spreading fear and anger and hatred of our country. Instead of having the best of everything (roads, jobs, healthcare, etc.) we have rich corporations determining policy, a president in an unconstitutional war (that every few months he changes the reason for our being there), an educational system that is bankrupt (therefore we cannot train our children for the new jobs that are coming), a standard of living not even in the top 10, the highest infant mortality rate in the developed countries, at least 2/3 of all bridges throughout the country overstressed and needing repaired.

Why can we not work on the problems? WHY CAN WE NOT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP THE FUCKING PARTISAN FIGHTING AND ACTUALLY WORK TO MAKE OUR NATION GREAT AGAIN? USE THE ENERGY YOU ARE USING FOR THE HATE AND REPLACE IT WITH COMMON DECENCY AND TRUE PATRIOTISM (THAT IS WANTING TO BETTER YOUR COUNTRY NOT JUST BLINDLY AGREEING WITH YOUR PARTY).

Fucking amazing how people have let the press turn thier focus off the TRUE issues. Aw well when it starts hitting people and the economy collapses and we are lucky to get 20 cents on the dollar at a bank maybe people will see. The only thing saving our asses now are our nukes.

For almost all the major democrats party > country.

For about 1/2 the major republicans party > country.

Saddly I see more and more republicans slipping into the party first mode.

My God you are baised.

Even in that you can't help but take a shot at democrats.

That's the exact thing that pan is talking about.

I think it is impossible to NOT be biased, try as we all might.

Ooh I'm sure. Hell I know I am biased. There are people and ideas I immediately turn off to as soon as they are brought up.
I can acknowledge those issues too.

But some people have an unbelieveable slant.

The way I take Ustwo's last post is that Democrats are entirely partisan. Incredibly partisan and thus a source of a majority of the problem discussed.
But Republicans are only about half that way, though "they are slipping" Still there is that 1/2 bit of nobility there that is supposedly above the fray. The good people.
But democrats are rotten to the core. Incapable of independent thought.

Right. There's a reason the Democratic party is called the Big Tent. We are incredibly fractured. We can barely ever agree on anything let along be gung ho for the party.

If we were as Ustwo says we are Gore would be president today. Nader would have been a non-factor.

But I expect no less from Ustwo, to him, Democrats and liberals are ill equiped to govern, espouse all the wrong ideas and at times actually have ideas and policies that are overtly or covertly evil.

I may not like most of the leadership of the Republican party, but I would never assume that 1/3 of this nation is absolutely inept or rotten.

Bias can be a good thing though because from it we can LEARN from the other side what can make the GROUP as a whole stronger. It's when bias is played into prejudice that it becomes evil. That is what the 2 parties are doing now. Turning bias into hatred instead of learning.

USTWO.... to believe what you have said would be ludicrous. There are very very good men on both sides of the aisle that would like to see us live up to our potential.

The problem is when you have 2 parties fighting like we do the voices of reason are ridiculed and because of the way society is today, unheard because they contain no scandal or hatred.

Both parties are as much to blame as both parties are innocent. A 2 party system works when both parties work for the common good. A 2 party system will only destroy that which they say they want to improve by constantly fighting and not listening to the other. By your statement alone, USTWO, you are saying that Democrats should not be heard.

That IS the problem, because right now when 1 party dominates and is so power hungry for more, the lesser party has to fight just to be heard.

If the GOP were so great a party they would not attack the Dems like they do. The GOP has all the power, why then are they acting like they do? If they want all the power then should we not be scared as to why? If they are afraid of the Dems. then should we not ask why?

The strange thing is, the Democrat and Republican parties are so close on nearly all matters of policy, there is no fundamental ideological difference between them. Perhaps this is why American politics is so full of smear tactics, because the only thing that can differentiate the Democrat and Republican candidate is personality?

Interesting how many people attack Ustwo when, to be for one party or the other, each of us has gauged the other party to be lacking in some way or another. Ustwo's opinion is as valid as anyone elses. It is an opinion and everyone is entitled to one (or several).

Obviously there are very good people on both sides of the aisle. If it was all about how good the people were, we would never talk about policy. When it comes down to it, it's about electing people who will support the majority of your standpoints and who you don't find personally repugnent.

There are serious ideological differences within the parties. Abortion, social & environmental programs/initiatives, free market vs government control, etc.

The reason the smear tactics are so prevalent is the apathy of voters and the need to really fire someone up to get them off their asses to go to the polls and/or to shift their support from one candidate to another.

There aren't that many issues that an individual voter really cares about and many opinions on which party is best for these issues are pretty well set in stone. This drives both sides to find more personal issues to shift support.

Oops, hit "Quote" instead of "Edit".

1, Abortion - presidents of both parties have made little change to abortion laws as far as I am aware

2, free market vs government control - both parties are clearly and openly capitalist. Neither party supports state owned enterprise, enforced worker democracy, or the nationalisation of key industries

3, environmentalism - both Clinton and Bush have been heavily criticised by the rest of the world for not doing enough in this area.

4, social policy - neither party supports a complete, cradle to the grave national health service, both parties support some kind of limited welfare "safety net", neither part supports massive spending on public services and a huge programme of taxation on the assets of the rich

These are the ideologicla differences that matter, that people care about. Both the Democratc and Republicians agree on the basic ideology of their parties the only arguments are on how to manage these policies.

There are those who think the Republican party is out to gut social programs and those who think the Democrats want to expand them. There are those who think the Republicans will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe V. Wade and those who are out to stop them.

The world has a long way to go in terms of environnmentalism and world policy is not the deciding factor for most American voters.

The points of contention you list are the ideological differences that you care about, not what the voters of America care about. You will never see a widespread movement to have the government take over industry.

Without wishing to be pedantic, have you ever heard of The February revolution? The General Strike? The Paris Commune?

Both parties basically believe in and stand for social capitalism - it is just a question of the iron fist in the silk glove (Democrats) or just the iron fist (Republicans)

Abortion is never going to be outlawd in America under even of the present parties regimes, there will always be a welfare system (with slightly more or less funding), there will always be heavy spending on the military.

To me, the whole myth of America as this hugely conservative and country is without foundation. A petty, but recent example, Janet Jackson - while the church and media and right wing interest groups go into fits of indignant rage at the idea of people seeing a woman's bare breast - does anyone actually know of anyone, personally, who found it terribly offensive? or who even cared? The real America is and always has been a radical country, and for so long Americans have been misrepresented by politicians radically to the Right of them. Even Utswo, someone who is as staunchly republican as could be imagined, seems to me to be to the Left of both major parties on most social issues.

I don't buy into the worker revolution theories you subscribe to so there's no real point in getting into that debate as neither of our viewpoints will be altered in any significant way by the arguments of the other.

I think you misread the American public. In general they do not stray far from their religious and social foundations. There were a great many people outraged by the Janet Jackson episode and there are several here on TFP (and, overall, we are a most liberal and open minded cross section of world society). Personally I could care less about it, but everyone has a right to voice their opinion.

While most Americans believe in some level of help for those less fortunate, there is little support for widespread programs to "equalize" wealth across the spectrum of citizens.

hahah, you know, one of my favorite professors in grad school had as his basic thesis: America began as a country of people who were under duress. No group came to this country completely willingly and no one came to this country completely happy. The pilgrims came to escape persecution, the slaves came as labor, irish came bc of a famine, etc. People in england were given a choice: prison or America...

This country is based upon group after group of distressed people, and as such, are definitely more radical than most other "traditional" countries. Look at Canada..the mounties went west before the people. In America..the people went west, followed by the law. America has always been a more radical place. What's even more interesting is that the American South has always been the separate country/culture within the culture. Just that the south was once the liberal bastion of the country..

So, i could easily see how we are...divisive on issues but left of most traditional countries and right of most countries. We aren't exactly the most cohesive of countries...

Historically it may be true, but in modern times, we are more united than divided on things. The Constitution, our sense of nationalism, and prosperity over the last 200+ years has gone a long way toward making us less radical.