Lying Sack of Shit

Because I’m lazy and this is like shooting fish in a barrel, here’s a partial deconstruction of Ann Coulter’s latest column:

To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush’s Crawford ranch.

Yes, she’s out there rolling out five-year plans, assassinating those that assisted her rise to power, and putting millions of people to death. Wait a minute, that sounds a lot more like something Bush would do than Cindy Sheehan.

It’s the strangest method of grieving I’ve seen since Paul Wellstone’s funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

Yes, strange how liberals like to grieve when their loved ones are killed. Strange too that The Religious Wrong also took advantage of Wellstone’s tragic death to advance their cause. Read Al Franken’s books.

Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn’t have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on “Entertainment Tonight,” you’re no longer a grieving mom; you’re a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

Hmm. A book deal, a reality show. Nothing eases the pain of having your son die for corporate interests like getting corporate interests of your own. I’ve yet to see a professional politican out there in Sheehan’s camp. Seems an awful lot to me like some grieving, pissed-off people who are staying on message with remarkable tenacity. By the way, Ann, you’ll burn in hell for libeling Madam Sheehan when she’s home caring for her ailing mother.

We’re sorry about Sheehan’s son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn’t about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11.

No, you’re not sorry, that’s the whole point. The entire nation was attacked on 9/11, and we’ve gone and done approximately zero to alleviate the terrorist threat, instead we’ve on Bush’s need for revenge and need to reward his corporate donors. You’re right. It’s not about personal loss. It’s about systematic, treasonous deception perpetrated by our government. And by the way, last time I checked, 9/11 was four years ago, not twenty. Even if we stretch back to the original WTC bombing, we’re only talking 11 years. Whether she’s being deliberate or just careless, Coulter certainly holds the torch for the conservative modus operandi.

It’s not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

Agreed. So why aren’t we doing any of those things? We were making progress in Afghanistan. Now we’re engaged in Vietnam writ large. Our current military policy seems instead to be: The poor and voiceless get killed to fill our pockets.

Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week’s sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation.

Oh Ann, you should have known that going to Hollywood Upstairs Legal College was going to skew your view of the Constitution. The only foreign policy apparatus the Constitution mentions is the ability to make war and enter into treaties, the former invested in the Congress, the latter in the Senate, neither power is the purview of the president. But foreign policy isn’t what Sheehan’s out there for. She’s out there to talk with President Bush and ask her why she sent her son to die. Oh well. Maybe you’ll make a coherent statement that aligns with reality in the next paragraph. Going 0 for 6 is pretty embarrassing, even for a conservative.

As Maureen Down said, it’s “inhumane” for Bush not “to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.” I’m not sure what “moral authority” is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Sheehan dictating foreign policy, then no, it’s not “absolute.” It’s not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

Oh well. 0 for 7. What Dowd meant, Ann, as anyone with a basic command of English infers, is that “moral authority” concerns these parents’ right to criticize the war. They’re not so-called “Ivory Tower” liberals invested in theory. They actually had someone they love die for Bush’s treason. Their authority on these matters is absolute. I wonder why you have such a hard-on for this foreign policy schtick.
Although it’s clear you haven’t the faintest understanding of what foreign policy actually is or how it works, you seem to invoke it a lot. Are you perhaps trying to make up facts that support your case when none exist in reality? Hmm. I recommend you see a shrink. One that’ll prescribe haldol or thorazine.
I’ll stop now. You can see where this is going. For the love of God, someone put this woman in an institution.
And no, before you send me hate mail, intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. And quoting libel to deconstruct it constitutes academic fair use in copyright law.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: