Calling Ann Coulter

Here are some more whiny parents of soldiers killed in Iraq. Take them out.
I’ve never heart of April Witt before, but I imagine that she’s done for as far as the Washington Post is concerned. Who does she think she is, anyway?
There’s at least one new target here. (But someone’s already on the job.)

6 thoughts on “Calling Ann Coulter

  1. I don’t think she’s done for at the Post. The article is comprehensive and not very controversial. She traces the procurement problems back to the 1970s. I’m sure one could trace them even further back. She lays much of the blame at the feet of Congress for earmaking every defense budget with unrelated items. (Sound familiar?)
    On the subject of body armor, she says the contract should have bet let to multiple manufacturer’s in 1999, but was not due to heavy lobbying. (Congress again)
    The only shock here is that this blog will continue to blindly support the very people Ms. Witt so ably condemns in her article.
    On your second issue – When you refer to “someone’s already on the job”, are you talking about the Today Show. They’re the people who were exploiting this poor gentleman for their own financial and political gain.

  2. ear Bush Dead-Ender:
    I was kidding about Witt being dead meat. Joke.
    Congress has been Republican since 1994. The article mentions specific problems with Bush’s performance. Etc. Etc.
    No, of course I meant Hinderaker, who (like Coulter) seems to have a real hatred of the families of dead servicemen.
    The only mystery to me is why you didn’t say anything about Monica Lewinski. You’re a loser now. Your man Bush is finished, in line to go down as the worst president in US history. You oughta get a different hobby.

  3. John,
    I read the article pretty carefully, and President Bush is only mentioned twice, neither relative to the procurement issue. The article really is about the procurement system, the pentagon, the congress, and the system wide problems she chronicled beginning in the 1970s.
    Did you read the article?
    I don’t understand your reference to Ms. Lewinski. I said nothing negative about President Clinton in my reply.
    Finally, history is treating Ronaldus Magnus pretty good, and as I recall, in 1992 you guys were telling me he was going down as the worst president in history.

  4. The recent events were Bush era. The historical background was pre-Bush. Duh.
    Bush was not named personally, but he has been in charge during the Iraq War.
    You did **not** read carefully.
    Feel free to be the last rat to desert the sinking ship.

  5. Funny about those 10,000 word articles that don’t directly mention the subject of the article. It seemed to me that you were reading into the article what you wanted to. I see your point now though. I just CAREFULLY reread Moby Dick, and although it was never mentioned, I now realize it was really about tighter border control.

  6. I read the article twice and it was not an easy read either time.The only thing I read were parents wanting to know why their son was dead when he didn’t have to be dead.Period! What the hell.This is not nor should it be political.This is personal.This is nuts! You old happy idiot put yourself into those parents shoes.You go there.I don’t give a damn who you have to picture as a substitute in your mind for their son.You do it and you make yourself feel like it could possibly be real.Then maybe you start to feel their anger and their pain.You try and imagine yourself wanting answers.And then you picture yourself going through everything they have to try and find those answers.In the article I read all I could see is two people trying to find an a reason for what they went through by attempting to prevent it from happening to other peoples children.If they came up with a new agenda while they were trying to get their answers,well that was the inevitable conclusion.

Comments are closed.