The whole John Edwards-Ann Coulter feud had been old news for a while. Until Coulter decided to add yet another inappropriate remark to her long list of tactless verbal pollution.
On June 25, she responded to a question on "Good Morning America" regarding a homophobic remark she made about presidential candidate John Edwards, saying that she wished he would be killed in a terrorist attack.
Only a truly vile, hypocritical person would make such a remark.
Only Ann Coulter.
This statement plainly expressed Coulter's wish that another terrorist attack would take place somewhere in the world, most likely on American soil. How else would her wish be carried out? Was Coulter seriously hoping for another 9/11?
Come on Ann, you have to learn to support your commander-in-chief; you have to support the war effort. Do you realize by making such a statement you are only empowering and emboldening the terrorists our president is working oh-so-hard to destroy? For Cheney's sake, be a team player.
It is terribly ironic that "Bush's Barbie" would say something that so obviously goes against the plans he has drawn for our country and for the Middle East. Anyone who could wish such a thing must be against her president, her country and her freedoms.
Coulter's 2006 book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," (complete with a cover photo of her brandishing a crucifix around her neck) is a prime example of her disdain for the so-called "Godless" left wing and a great showing of her own supposed faith.
Bull.
Seeing how wishing death upon another person is not looked kindly upon in Christianity and - I'm willing to bet - is even seen as a sin, Coulter sure seems to be the one with religion issues.
This statement alone told me that Coulter has abandoned her Republican party, her president, her country, her county's ideas of safety and freedom, and her religion.
Come on Ann, be an American.
Interesting, but I'm disappointed. You seem to have filled your post with hot air instead of truly considering the issue.
Instead of discussing the appropriateness of the remark, the debate that resulted in Coulter's remark, or the vitriol going on between Edwards and Coulter, you said, "This statement plainly expressed Coulter's wish that another terrorist attack would take place somewhere in the world, most likely on American soil." What?
You were being sarcastic (I hope), but then you just went on about how "Bush's Barbie" has "abandoned her Republican party", which obviously isn't true. Sarcasm doesn't prove anything but that you're smart. It makes you seem haughty.
And you haven't proven Coulter to be hypocritical; you use the irony you happened to discover in Coulter's statement to support your claim. You know she didn't want the U. S. to be attacked again. If you do think that, you're mistaken.
It's not enough to be political. You have to supply information in your rants, or they'll just be hot air.
Ann Coulter's comment was, "...if I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he'd been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
Maybe you just don't get her humor and point. She made the comment in reference to someone's liberal comment/hope that the Vice President be killed by terrorists while visiting the Middle East. Is the comment wishing VP Cheney's death also unacceptable to you? Where's your rant on that?
Ms. Coulter's use of "faggot" and other jibes at Mr. Edwards is her way of pointing out liberal and media bias on issues. You're either not smart enough to get it or you haven't done your research.
Your rant does nothing but "attempt", (very poorly and very uninformed) to bash Ms. Coulter.
It's especially disappointing that a female would refer to another female as a "Barbie."
Plus, Barbies are not manufactured with large distended Adam's apples and man-like chins, so you're off the mark there.