Here is a book review I posted on Amazon.com. Once again, someone has chosen a book review site to challenge me in socio-political and once again I refuse to debate things on Amazon.com. That's what this site is for. So here is the review, followed by a keen reader's response.
Ann Coulter has written yet another book that is sure to have the Left on the offensive. This time she addresses what she calls the Church of Liberalism which, in her mind, is the only religion that many on the Left endorse. The Church consists of the untouchable spokesmen (those who have suffered terrible losses and hate Bush), adoration for priest-like teachers, unconditional support for the rights of criminals and undying devotion to the theocratic doctrine of Darwinism. Coulter uses her jagged wit to point out that despite their opposition to organized religion the Left adheres to the principles mentioned in an almost cult-like manner.
But, of course, the most controversial part of the book was her criticism of the 9/11 wives. Very few things can get the Left in a frenzied uproar the way Coulter did by going after these women. While I admit that her words were a bit over-the-top, perhaps flirting on the brink of cruelty, I also have to admit that she does indeed have a point. Losing a loved-one does not exempt someone from being challenged in debate, especially when that someone resorts to harsh name-calling and reckless accusations of their own. Ironically, the Left's reaction to Coulter's contention validated her point.
Those on the Right will find parts of this book interesting and will agree with me that some of it is over the top. But, basically, this is much of the same from the woman the Left loves to hate.
And here is the response from a gentleman named Edwin.
I read your profile with interest. Perhaps you could tell me where the New Jersey Girls began name-calling. Perhaps you can also tell me how you can justify any of the attacks on these women by anyone let alone Coulter and others of her ilk.
These women wanted to know:
Why were the airlines made exempt from law suits?
Why Port Authority didn't exercise an evacuation procedures.
Why they kept people in the building.
Why was Norad's response so weak and directionless.
Why President Bush opposed an independent commission into the greatest attack upon this country.
Why the White House gave less money to investigate this disaster than they gave for a study on casino gambling.
Why the White House tried to stack the commission with cronies, especially with Henry Kissinger, a frequent visitor and unofficial advisor to the White House.
Why the White House fought tooth and nail the commission lasting longer than 18 months.
Why the president refused to testify under oath.
Why the president had to have Cheney with him when he answered questions.
Why the White House did not implement a single 9/11 commission recommendation?
What the Congress and the White House were doing to ensure that it would never happen again.
Don't you think these questions deserved answers?
Yes, Ed, I do. So let me give it a shot. First, here are a few quotes from the Jersey Girls:
"At any point in time the casualties could have been lessened, and it seems to me there wasn't even an attempt made." --Monica Gabrielle
"President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day." --Kristin Breitweiser
"Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush's watch."-- Kristin Breitweiser
Yes, I consider these to be reckless accusations and name calling. What exactly is Ms Breitweiser suggesting with that last quote? As for "justifying" the attacks, well I don't justify cruelty of any kind. I simply stated that Coulter had a point. We've conveyed a sense of infallibility to victims in today's society. The Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan; they all seem to get a free pass to make reckless accusations with harsh and uncalled-for language, and because they have suffered we are not allowed to challenge them on it. Again, the fact that Ed takes exception to my review validates that point.
The airlines were exempt from lawsuits because, in my opinion, the airlines weren't to blame. Had they, for some reason, actually prevented all 19 hijackers from getting on the plane they would've been sued by the ACLU for discrimination. Gimme a break.
The buildings weren't evacuated because they felt there was more harm in moving people outside. You know, the threat of inciting panic and getting people trampled and all. There is no way anyone could have anticipated a collapse of the buildings. The fact that firefighters entered the buildings themselves is proof of that.
NORAD scrambled fighters and the decision was made to bring down planes if necessary. What exactly were they supposed to do? Shoot down commercial jetliners on a whim? The towers were already burning before it became obvious. We weren't prepared. It's not NORAD's fault.
Bush adheres to executive priviledge and doesn't believe that a member of the administration should testify under oath. That's his right, and any President would do the same. Cheney was a key advisor and was in Washington when the attack happened, Bush wasn't, so it makes sense to have him there when answering questions.
That's all for now. I'll answer more tomorrow.