Analyzing Ann

Turns out that analyzing Ann has proven too exhausting to continue. After skipping too articles, I've realized even analyzing the title of this weeks article ("Saddam In Custody -- Moore, Soros, Dean Still At Large") is making my stomach knot. I mean Ann Coulter really wants to see Moore Soros and Dean in prison?

Actually, she's already answered that question hasn't she. She did, after all, write a book called Treason which called for a very "liberal" application of that term to a vast number of Democrats.

Then there's this great distortion, 'bout half way though.

"There's Michael Moore, who has said he hopes more Americans will die in Iraq. His movie, "Fahrenheit 7/11" as we call it, apparently supports the Times' view that life in Iraq was better, sunnier, happier under Saddam Hussein."

I don't know what to make of Fahrenheit 7/11 except to say that Ann is the only person I've seen calling it that, and I'm not sure I understand the reference. But the first part of the statement is a gross distortion of what Mr. Moore actually said. I assume she is referring to a statement Mr. Moore made when he was dealing with the question of whether or not we should press for more United Nations Troops. His opinion was, and I'm paraphrasing, that as the Iraqi war was our mistake, we should bear the costs of occupying Iraq, and one of those costs is more troop casualties. I mean how is the United States supposed to learn not make mistakes if when we make one we get bailed out immediately?

For the record I disagree with Moore here; I don't think America learning a lesson is the only consideration. More UN troops and less US troops makes it more likely that the Iraqi people can make the transition to a stable democracy (slim as that hope is), and I think that should be our top priority.