1524 Barr Avenue, #2, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15205

History Articles
Humor Only
Television Archives
Contact Al

Home arrow Columns

There are 223 Ann Coulter replies, political, humor, nostalgia and tribute columns

Choose the column type BELOW

Your selections will appear BELOW

You've Chosen


 Ann Coulter Reply


 February, 2007


 Ann Coulter - Stretching logic to blame John Murtha

Looking Back to the Future

By Al Owens
Conservatives just love lecturing their political adversaries when it comes to discussing the inflated rhetoric the Bush Administration used to sell us the war in Iraq. “Let’s not rehash the past”, they tell us. “We’re no longer over eager used car salesmen trying to make a sales pitch. “We’re selling lawn mowers now, and we’re trying to clear a path to the future.” I’m surprised these forward thinking people haven’t introduced legislation that would outlaw any reference to the “weapons of mass destruction”!

These are the same people who want everybody to engage in selective amnesia, rather than to be reminded how they’d staged a well-planned media campaign (complete with selective intelligence) to get us into this mess.

So why then, would anybody really pay much attention to somebody like Ann Coulter - who still wants us to believe that that wasn’t really a blindfold and a dartboard that got us into Iraq? They’d like us to forget a White House with inhabitants who walked and talked with the swagger of John Wayne, but who’ve since conducted a war as methodically as the Keystone Cops!

That’s why Ann Coulter’s flashback to 1980, this week, is rather interesting. She tries, like only Ann Coulter can, to engulf Congressman John Murtha with old flames – in a way gives me the impression she’s the one who really feels the heat. She’s pulled out that musty old thing about Murtha wanting to take bribes from FBI agents posing as sheiks more than two and a half decades ago. She’s polished it up, and even though he never got around to actually taking those bribes, she’s done everything except convict him with a swipe of her pen. She reminds us, by the way, that she’s an attorney by trade. (The better to act as judge and jury for a case that never went to court)

Too bad his middle name isn’t Hussein. She could have gone an entire month on Murtha.

The fact is Murtha has committed a recent indiscretion that has given rise to new attacks from all over neo-conservative America. He’s suggested he’ll attach an amendment to future Iraq War appropriations legislation that will mandate that anybody who gets sent to Iraq must be properly trained and equipped.

Who does this Murtha guy think he is? How can he do something as un-American as hint that our troops can’t be used as sitting ducks?

No wonder Ann Coulter leaped into action. She’s written an 872 word column that only contains two sentences about the Murtha proposal. The rest of it is the kind of deflection away from it that it leads you to believe he’s onto something!

She’s not the only hysterical right winger to go after Murtha. Fox News’ Britt Hume not only attacked Murtha, he’s claiming the entire Democratic Party is no better than he is. “The fact that he has ascended to the position he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what's really going on over there.”
My, oh my! I wonder what he would have said if Murtha had suggested we honor the Easter bunny.

Hume stopped just short of calling Murtha a crazy old coot, when he added, “This guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.”

If Murtha doesn’t even have a “foggy awareness”, Mr. Hume, why did voters re-elect him with a 22 percent margin last fall? Especially since his young opponent’s supporters dragged out all of that grainy old FBI sting video, and all of those assaults on Murtha’s patriotism. Maybe it’s because his opponent – Diana Irey - sounded too much like Britt Hume.

Some of the voices from the right that have come out in opposition to Murtha and his proposal have started to sound downright silly. (If those Ann Coulter and Britt Hume examples aren’t silly enough)

One Texas Republican, Representative Sam Johnson, claims the proposal would, “hamstring our troops in harms way.” That’s the same Sam Johnson who actually tried to hamstring the troops back in 1995, when Bill Clinton sent troops to Bosnia. “I wholeheartedly support withholding funds”, said Johnson back then. “It’s the best way I know how to show respect for our American servicemen and women.”

That’s the same Sam Johnson who’s been using that new conservative battle cry “slow bleed”, to characterize opponents of the President in general and Murtha’s proposal specifically. That’s a fresh new way of saying people who’ve had enough of this war want to cut and run. You remember cut-and-run, don’t you? It’s the phrase that Republicans had to stop using, when so many of them lost elections for wanting to “stay the course”.

To be honest, the Murtha proposal is a ploy. It’s simply designed to put pressure on the White House to curtail further re-deployments to Iraq. It may not work. But consider that other ploy. The one George Bush foisted upon the American public back in 2003. Oops! I just thought back to 2003.

Come to think of it that was really when the “slow bleed” began.