Yep, continuing our new feature (now that the lamps seem to have run their course) is our ongoing attempt to, in a more scientific way, analyze Ann Coulters Columns.
As you recall, last week Ms. Coulters article was 43 sentences long. 20 of those sentences were attacks, 13 were positive statements of her argument, and 10 were neutral (making percentages of 47%, 30%, and 23%, respectively).
Well, Ann's latest column, "This is History calling - quick, get me Rewrite!" has 37 statements. 23 of them are attacks (making a whopping 62% of the total), 9 are positive (making 24%) and 5 are neutral (making 14%). One thing to note, her last paragraph contained a lot of short sentences slamming into Al Gore. Had she left that off, her negative/positive balance would have been a lot closer to last weeks.
A further note on the title. Ann presumably doesn't believe that she is asking for a rewrite of history (although she is).
Ann's central thesis (beyond the standard "Liberals are Hateful Morons") is that a story from New York Times Magazine, in which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz laid out the case for the invasion of Iraq, was the Rosetta stone to understanding what would happen when we invaded. Incidently it remains the Rosetta stone despite having been penned by Bill Keller, now editor in chief at the "Seditionist Rag," by which Ann means the New York Times. If only the New York Times were as unbiased as Coulter herself, but apparently we can trust it in this instance.
Among other things, Wolfowitz apparently stated to Keller that Saddam probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program. So you see that proves what hypocrites we Liberals are. Here was the Secretary of Defense patiently explaining to us liberals that Saddam probably didn't even have a nuclear program running, certainly not one that was near completion, and we just weren't listening.
I guess these other guys were talking so much it was hard to pay attention to Wolfowitz.
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - President George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
"QUESTION: So Saddam's more dangerous than North Korea or Iran?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think so because of his past practice and because we believe that he is a danger, a fundamental danger, not only for the region but potentially the United States, as well. And I say, a lot of that is based on the evidence that's now available, that he is working actively to improve his . . . nuclear weapons program." - Vice President Richard Cheney, Meet the Press, September 8, 2002
"The problem with that is the way one gains absolutely certainty as to whether a dictator like Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons is if he uses it, and that's a little late." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, September 8, 2002
Got these quotes from a site I mentioned last week, "Iraq on the Record." There were 30 such references between September 1st and October 15th according to "Iraq on the Record."
Ann's slams on Gore are typically mean-spirited, but just as typically somewhat difficult to prove. And of course there's this gem. "He grew a beard - just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims."
But the most problematic part of Ann's essay comes in the first couple of lines.
"The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations - certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions - hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences - have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.
Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war."
There are no real problems in Iraq, and anybody who says that there are problems in Iraq is a Liberal Liar (and presumably a Bush-Hater). What kind of life does Ann Lead that she's comfortable saying that? I mean part of this is shifting the terrain. The problems that Liberals are pointing out now aren't problems with the invasion itself, but problems with our plans to occupy Iraq. But there seems to be a willful decision on Ann's part to believe that the war in Iraq is going great.
Providing yet more proof for my thesis that Reality itself is Partisan.
No comments:
Post a Comment