Republican Extremists

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”-----First Amendment of the United States Constitution

Two Extreme Right Wing Cases: Daniel Pipes & Ann Coulter

Moondustgypsy1

Daniel Pipes and Ann Coulter are useful right wing idiots because of their bombast, reckless thought and rhetoric that only those with the same ideological point of view may find as enlightened political thought.

These two right wing extremists are proud of bashing and defaming any political adversary they deem fit necessary to lash out against. They are of course the best the right wing has to offer these days since propaganda must end on their side or else. Do yourselves a favor after reading about these right wing extremists. Look up the word projection in a psychological dictionary and you might be half-way home onto these right wing extremists. The bias against scholars and a supposedly failed Middle East studies program across the United States was posited first by Martin Kramer’s book Ivory Towers on Sand which said that these scholars failed to be academically honest about the relations the U.S. exhibited throughout the Gulf region. The Weekly Standard, which Bill Kristol was the Editor at the time gave the book by Kramer a great overall rating. This book as well as the favorable review it received gave more impetus to bash Middle Eastern studies and this charge was led by Daniel Pipes. Lynn Cheney led a group called ACTA that attempts to bring high academic standards for professors who engage in anti-American talk, or are overly engage in thoughts of moral relativism. (1) But it was Daniel Pipes who led the charge targeting both Muslims and college professors during this period of paranoid-hysteria after September 11, 2001.

1. Brian Whitaker “US think tanks give lessons in foreign policy”
The Guardian, August 19, 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html

First Extreme Right Wing Case:

Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch

“While most Muslims are not Islamists and most Islamists are not terrorists, all Islamist terrorists are Muslims.” ---Daniel Pipes (1)

Daniel Pipes founded Campus Watch which is another watchdog group, that tracks the fifteen thousand experts of Middle East studies in America, which consists mainly of scholars from Arab descent. He is a self-proclaimed scholar, who says there is the existence of militant Islam. (8) He claims that “militant Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution.” (3)Although he denies being a religious bigot, Pipes says Islam promotes separatism and apartheid. (4) Pipes is also a writer for the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post, in addition to the Jerusalem Post, where Richard Perle (on Pentagon Advisory Board under Bush) was once the Chairman of the Board. He advocates the increased surveillance of Muslims, disregarding legal issues since they are the group who wants to harm the United States and Israel. (5) But, it was in 1990 that Middle East Forum member Daniel Pipes made his first verbal attack on Muslims, and, this was before Osama bin Laden was considered a major terror threat. The Middle East Forum targets campuses around the United States making sure that accuracy is being taught in Middle East Studies. When not taught to their standards, in universities, this organization tries to censor professors whose scholarship, they do not approve. (6) Pipes points to the four thousand dead Americans since 1979 due to Islamic terror which has led him to believe that Islam is an enemy both inside and outside of America, saying that:

“There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prison and the armed forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples....If Americans want to protect themselves from Islamist terrorism, they must temporarily give higher priority to security concerns than to civil-libertarian sensitivities. Preventing Islamists from inflicting further damage implies the regrettable step of focusing on Muslims. Not to do so is an invitation to further terrorism.” (7)

After the attacks of September 11, Pipes set up a Web Site which allows people or students to alerts him to academic dishonesty within Middle East Studies by notifying him at www.campus-watch.org. (8) His objective is to track all universities or professors who criticize the United States or Israel; sympathize with terrorists; or support militant Islam, and now seeks to limit the free speech of college professors Campus Watch will attempt to show the real story of the “Arab-Israeli conflict, militant Islam, democracy in the Arab world, and human rights in the Arab world.” (9) Pipes claims that there is serious problems in how Middle East scholars teach, saying that the approach of these professors demonstrates too many “analytical failures; the mixing of politics with scholarship; intolerance of alternative views; apologetics (like describing "jihad" as a benign reform movement); and the abuse of an instructor's power over students (withholding recommendations from those who don't agree with them).” (10) However, unlike university professors, individuals who make it a career hiding out in these think tanks posing as “experts” have immediate access to those in powerful government positions, which they seek to influence and change if possible to fit their agenda. This is a big sleight on intellectuals who specialize in specific fields of study to rely on those with specific agendas over people who spend their entire careers in analyzing and researching data in an objective manner. (11) Pipes also, has requested that all University Presidents be made “to establish standards for media statements by faculty.” (12)

In “Why Do So Many Professors Hate America,?” Pipes says that professors need to be watched for their hatred of America, calling on the academic community to monitor professors who engage in academic dishonesty. (13) In this article Pipes questions the legitimacy of professors scholarship asking “why do professors of linguistics, chemistry, American history, genetics and business present themselves in public as authorities on the Middle East?” He asks, “what is the long-term effect of an extremist, intolerant and anti-American environment on university students?” (14) Pipes in what he called “a typical sampling of opinion” named the following faculty members from American academic institutions as being anti-American in this age of fighting terror and preserving America’s proud heritage and traditions. He considers among others, these professors as enemies of United States policy. They are: Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT; Jim Rego, visiting assistant professor of chemistry Glenda Gilmore; an assistant professor of history of the American South at Yale University; Eric Foner, professor of nineteenth-century American history at Columbia University; Tom Nagy, associate professor of business at George Washington University; and Mazin Qumsiyeh, associate professor of genetics at Yale University and co-founder of the “Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition (15) Central Connecticut State University is also on Pipes‘ Campus Watch over what Pipes perceived as a one-sided teach-in conference last year for high school teachers, which showed a bias against Israel. (16)

On February 25, 2003, Pipes was a guest on CNN’s Moneyline, with Lou Dobbs discussing the situation of Islamic studies in America following the arrest of Middle East studies professor Sameeh Hammoudeh from the University of South Florida. ”for allegedly funneling money into the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad.” ⁽¹⁷⁾Pipes makes it his life keeping track of professors. Pipes, also. targeted the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) which is a professional group of scholars on the Middle East. Pipes viewed MESA’s stand to be totally unacceptable as they defended the pro-terrorist behavior of University of South Florida Professor, Sami Al-Arian, who had made overt comments at political rally’s for violence against Israel. Arian was placed on administrative leave when it was learned he made pronouncements of jihad with Israel. He has since been arrested by the FBI for not only his connection with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but having been their leader in North America. (18) He regularly implies that Middle East studies is a breeding ground for Muslim terrorists to spread their anti-American message to students here, which is why he requests that non-academics notify Campus Watch about scholarly issues that are being misrepresented in the classroom. Pipes calls on universities and outsiders whether they be “alumni, state legislators, non-university specialists, parents of students” to be watchdogs, in order to “critique failed scholarship,” (19) by this awful professorship permeating America’s universities. Pipes said that “Middle East studies as a discipline has been corrupt for decades....We are Middle East specialists and we are trying to monitor, critique and improve the way these courses are taught in North America.” (20)Pipes says the flawed interpretations of presented information and the construct of their arguments need to be scrutinized. Pipes told Dobbs that militant Islam should be viewed as:

“a benign phenomenon, something that is democratizing, is empowering, and is a good thing overall, and so you have a radical disconnect between the analysis of the specialists, the people who really make this their focus, their study, what they devote their lives to, and what the rest of us think about it. And so, therefore, having these three individuals who are actual terrorists in the ranks of Middle East studies is not that surprising because they fit in. Now, granted, terrorism is not normal, but the kind of views they had, astonishingly, were normal. Even after the indictment came out last week, their bosses, their colleagues were saying, hey, these are good people, they're scholars, what do you want?” (22)

Dobbs was stunned by Pipes claims that Middle East studies in America’s universities are “espousing radical Islamist ideology,” which states like Florida would allow the continuation of federal funding if this was going on at a rampant pace. Dobbs, was not surprised that universities were supporting their embattled faculty, since its not uncommon to stand behind one’s colleagues. Pipes said that American taxpayers should be more aware of this activity as the arrests showed that there are regular diatribes against the United States government and people being paid with the citizens financial support. Pipes maintains for the good of America, his hate talk has to stop, telling Dobbs that:

“More broadly, it is the federal government, it is the U.S. Congress, it is the national taxpayer who is giving tens of millions of dollars each year for Middle East studies centers. And my point is that there is an atmosphere of radicalism and anti-Americanism that is something that we, the citizenry should be paying attention to. I'm not calling for anyone to be fired. I'm not calling for anybody's freedom of speech to be abridged, but I'm saying we've got a problem when there's this radicalized outlook.” (24)

There was an uproar when President Bush named Daniel Pipes to lead the U.S. Institute of Peace, which subsequently he is now in-charge. Muslim groups opposed Pipes nomination to lead this organization because he is seen as being unable to utilize the middle ground with conflict resolution pertaining to Islam. (25) The Council on American-Islamic Relations. was the most vocal group against President Bush’s nomination of Pipes at the end of March, to U.S. Institute of Peace. (26) It did not matter. Like of all Bush's controversial appintments, the anti-Arab racist Daniel Pipes was confirmed to lead the U.S. Institute of Peace. But with Pipes in-charge one may want to think of it as the U.S. Instiutute of Anti-Peace unless understands the concept of "War as Peace," which seems to be the more fitting understanding of the present Bush administration.

Pipes maintains that watchdog groups are needed “to create a politically balanced atmosphere.” But how does Pipes know this does not exist? Part of the learning experience is for students to be able to make their own judgments regardless of what a professor says and amply back that up with documented fact. This is part of the learning process in education. Pipes as a Ph.D should realize that students should not depend on their professors opinions alone, but, to begin forming their own analysis and conclusions. If students are too lazy to do their own findings or choose to take their professors at face value, then its the lazy students own fault for what they are told.

In short, people like Daniel Pipes are a direct threat to free speech and thought in America. It is people like Mr. Pipes who want to make people guilty by association. Mr. Pipes seems to be a frustrated academic who did not become the prolific like Richard Pipes, the historian did. Mr. Pipes is a huge bad sore on what the framer of the United Constitution wrote down and if he does not like or respect free speech or thought then he should leave America and stop harassing others as he does so well.

There are other right wing propagandists and like organizations out there. One such organization is the Near East Policy Middle East Forum. One of the biggest and loudest propagandists and cheerleader for war against Iraq was one Laurie Myloroie. Laurie Myloroie has over the years written extensively on the need to go to war in Iraq and take down the regime of Saddam Hussein. She has often been joined in arms by people like Pipes but not only him. Myloroie has been joined by New York Times journalist and propagandist Judith Miller in calliing for the regime change scenario in Iraq often echoing the sentiments of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. All of these people are part of a large right wing movement and think tanks which are often short on adequate research methods and highly flawed analysis which more than not goes against the available evidence. Callahan talks a great deal aboout the impact of these right wing think tanks in the media and their insidious ways of how they infect the political discourse adding a flavor of dishonesty, on purpose, in the public domain of ideas.

Laurie Myloroie wrote a widely known book called “Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America.” published and sanctioned by the right-wing foreign policy think tank called: Washington Institute for Near East Policy Middle East Forum. (27) These established conservative policy think tanks mobilize support effectively giving the Republicans an overwhelming edge, in shaping the public policy debate, as their party ideology reflects the beliefs of these think tanks and vice versa. Callahan said that:

“Conservative policy groups have shown increasing sophistication in waging high-intensity battles over extended periods of time, better coordinating their activities with lobbyists in the private sector, political operatives in Washington and the states, and activists at the grassroots....Many operate like “extra-party” organizations, adopting the tactics of the permanent political campaign by incorporating a fund raising arm, a lobbying arm, a policy analysis and development arm, a public relations arm, and a grassroots mobilization or constituency development arm.” (28)

Callahan says the three main policy think tanks have taken their “ideological themes” to new heights with an “unflagging commitment to the marketing of their policy.” The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute have shown a great “sophistication of their political communications,” in cleverly weaving the public policy debate regarding social, cultural, and foreign policy issues from a right wing perspective, as they are now “skillfully using mainstream and alternative media outlets to create a powerful echo effect in and beyond the nation’s capital.” (29) These think tanks which are financed by the to ensure a white male dominated society working as reinvigorated quasi-organs of the Republican Party is “a carefully planned campaign to restore the Right to dominance in the Republican Party and the country as a whole.” (30) The other three tanks that are important right wing thinks tanks includes: the Hoover Institution; the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and, the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.” (31)

ENDNOTES

1. Daniel Pipes, “The Enemy Within,” in The Iraq War Reader, p. 342, Ed. Micah L. Sifry and Christopher Cerf, Touchstone, (New York: 2003).

2. Susan H. Kahn: “Playing watchdog to Middle East scholars: Campus Watch seeking to improve the way Mideast studies taught” in Cleveland Jewish News, March 14, 2003

"http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/display/inn_news/local/campus0314.txt"

3. Alan Cooperman: “Muslims Protest Bush Nominee: Groups Say Peace Institute Choice Sends 'Wrong Message’” Washington Post April 7, 2003.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A42881-2003Apr6.html

4. Kahn, “Playing watchdog to Middle East scholars: Campus Watch seeking to improve the way Mideast studies taught.”

5. Pipes, “The Enemy Within,” in The Iraq War Reader, p. 341.

6. Brian Whitaker “US think tanks give lessons in foreign policy” The Guardian, August 19, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.htm

7. Pipes, “The Enemy Within,” in The Iraq War Reader, p. 342.

^{8. Kahn, “Playing watchdog to Middle East scholars: Campus Watch seeking to improve the way Mideast studies
taught.”
9. Ibid.}

10. Ibid.

11. Whitaker “US think tanks give lessons in foreign policy”
The Guardian, August 19, 2002

12. Daniel Pipes: “Why Do So Many Professors Hate America?” Culture Watch, November 18, 2002 http://hnn.us/articles/1013.html (This article first appeared in the New York Post.)

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Daniel Pipes. www.campus-watch.org. The targeted CCSU professors were Dr. Ali Antar, Dr. Ghassan El-Eid, and Dr. Norton Mezvinsky over a teach-in about the Middle East in the summer of 2002. Pipes is definitely reminiscent of the Truth Squads held so dear by Leo Strauss and the Straussians. The Straussian Truth Squads set out to deliberately threaten, harass, and intimdiate any scholar on rhe left in a challenging way from the books they used in class to lectures given on any one topic. They have also condone(d) the use of deception to meet an end in the political game. (Leo Strauss followers or diciples known as the Straussians).

17. Lou Dobbs “Is Middle East Studies a Safe-haven for Terrorists?” CNN Moneyline, February 25, 2003 http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/563"

18. Kahn, “Playing watchdog to Middle East scholars: Campus Watch seeking to improve the way Mideast studies taught.”

19. Pipes, “Why Do So Many Professors Hate America?” Culture Watch, November 18, 2002.

20. Susan H. Kahn: “Playing watchdog to Middle East scholars: Campus Watch seeking to improve the way Mideast studies taught.”

21. Lou Dobbs “Is Middle East Studies a Safe-haven for Terrorists?” CNN Moneyline, February 25, 2003

22. Ibid.

23.Ibid.

^{24. Ibid.}

25. The Washington Post Editorial: “Fueling a Culture Clash: “Mosques are proved to be the planning grounds for militant Islam so this is where we should look”

April 19, 2003. www.bintjbeil.com/E/news/030419_pipes.html - 15k -

26. Alan Cooperman: “Muslims Protest Bush Nominee: Groups Say Peace Institute Choice Sends 'Wrong Message’” Washington Post April 7, 2003.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A42881-2003Apr6.html

27. Brian Whitaker “US think tanks give lessons in foreign policy”
The Guardian, August 19, 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html

28. Callahan: Excerpt of: $1 Billion For Ideas: Conservative Think Tanks In The 1990s”, in Commonweal Institute.

29. Ibid.

30. Berlet and Hardisty: “An Overview of the U.S. Political Right: Drifting Right and Going Wrong” The Public Eye (A version of this article first appeared in early 2003 in the NCJW Journal, Winter 2002, pp. 8-11

31. Callahan: Excerpt of: $1 Billion For Ideas: Conservative Think Tanks In The 1990s”, in Commonweal Institute. According to Callahan, these are the full list of the most powerful organizational, financial, political, economic, think tanks for policy, research, and development that the conservative movement has in the game of debate and ideas. The liberals and democrats do not have anything that can compete in equal ground with these twenty, which are the: American Enterprise Institute; American Legislative Exchange Council; Atlas Economic Research Foundation ; Cato Institute; Center for Strategic and International Studies ; Citizens for a Sound Economy; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Empower America; Employment Policy Foundation; Ethics and Public Policy Center; Family Research Council; Free Congress Research and Education Foundation; Heritage Foundation; Hoover Institution; Hudson Institute; Manhattan Institute; National Center for Policy Analysis; National Center for Public Policy; Research Progress and Freedom Foundation; and the Reason Foundation . In addition, according to Callahan, “expenditures by the 20 institutions examined were $158.1 million in 1996.... He also said that “partial data from 1997 indicates that spending by center-right and far-right think tanks continues to grow rapidly, suggesting that the 1990s has been a period of continued institution-building by political conservatives. Overall spending by these institutions between 1990 and 2000 is likely to top $1 billion.”

Second Extreme Right Wing Case:

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter is a propagandist like the rest as she goes on the cable networks nightky ranting against "phantom" liberals she has ever identified in true ideological form. Coulter does infect the political discourse in America with her psychotic like rants. Coulter is an enigma and she too often lacks for a coherent historical understanding of tracing the trends of history. Coulter might be a lawyer but she is not a credible person when it comes to political analysis or historical trends and development. In talking about John Lindh Walker for example, Coulter puts him on the side of liberals. Well, Islamic fundamentalism is more similar to Christian fundamentalism than it is to liberalism. Both fundamentalisms take aim at the modern age of liberalism and seek to restore either Christianity or Islam into the society at-large. This might be a simplification of sorts, but Coulter distorts and outright lies in making her often short-sigted analysis.

ANNE COULTER: PARTISAN POLITICAL PUNDIT

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." ----Ann Coulter in a New York Observer interview, 8/20/2002 (1)

Ann Coulter is linked to the Federalist Society as she helped to found their student chapter at the University of Michigan while also being the fonder of the Cornell Review when she was an undergraduate at Cornell. She is also a member of the Independent Women’s Forum, an auxiliary group of the Federalist Society “for women only.” The late Barbara Olson who died in the 9-11 attacks was also a member of this women’s legal society. (2) Coulter who once worked in the Justice Department with her law degree helped lawyers in the impeachment trial of President Clinton and wrote a book called High Crimes and Misdemeanors to detail the affair he had with Monica Lewinsky. (3) Coulter, who represents the hard core right is also an author, pundit, and columnist who hates liberals, democrats, and any group or individual that is part of their team or advocacy wing, and has been bashing liberals now for over five years in books, articles, and speeches. Coulter uses the platform which has been granted to her to carry on with hateful speech on ABC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, NBC, and various radio shows. She has a website where her latest articles can be found: www.anncoulter.org/columns.html Coulter is politically allied with Federalist Society members Solicitor General Ted Olson, and Attorney General Ashcroft, who she defends. Coulter admired the way her friend Barbara Olson had “kept her cool” amidst all the “hysteria and terror of hijackers” on 9-11, when she used her cell phone to call husband Ted Olson before this “plane plunged in a fiery explosion directly into the Pentagon.” (4) On the death of Barbara Olson, Coulter said:

“Apart from hearing that this beautiful light has been extinguished from the world, only one other news flash broke beyond the numbingly omnipresent horror of the entire day. That evening, CNN reported that bombs were dropping in Afghanistan — and then updated the report to say they weren't our bombs. They should have been ours. I want them to be ours. This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.” (5)

After September 11th, Coulter led the attacks on Muslims, and in the most verbal violent ways, in the public eye. Coulter said in a now infamous quote, said for the Bush administration to carpet bombing Afghanistan. She said that “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.” (6) Coulter criticized the airport security saying its silly that “airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers.” (7)

Coulter reflects the party line where party marching orders are given at annual GOPAC meetings. They bash liberals and Democrats at GOPAC meetings, in the harshest tone. In step with the right-wing’s chants of bashing liberals, Coulter did so at the Conservative Political Action Conference on January 30 to February 2, 2002, in Arlington, Virginia, only months after the attacks. (8) The CPAC is a big gala event where Republicans set-up their propaganda machine for action. At this conference Coulter said that “when contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty....We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.” (9) Coulter expressing venomous contempt for liberals and Democrats, said that the left was identifiable with Muslim extremists. She said that “you're not a patriot in this war until a liberal has compared you to the Taliban.” (10)

Coulter unequivocally dismisses liberal-based assessments, saying: “like everything liberals oppose but don't have a good argument for, all reasonable national security measures are called "unconstitutional." Whenever liberals are losing on substance, they pretend to be upset about process.” (11) Coulter attacks the patriotism of liberals as being dormant, although only an unfounded allegation. Coulter makes many verbal assaults on liberals although she has never been in the military, yet used this audacious tone of ridicule with no clearly defined point other than to bash the “proper prejudices of elitist liberals against ordinary Americans” (12) Coulter adds to this by saying that:

“While hooting with laughter at patriotic Americans, liberals prattle on and on about the right to dissent as the true mark of patriotism and claim their unrelenting kvetching is a needed corrective to jingoism. (It's not jingoism, and the only people who use that word are fifth columnists.)...After Sept. 11, liberals are appalled by patriotism with an edge of anger because that might lead America to defend itself. True patriotism, they believe, should consist of redoubled efforts at attacking George Bush.” (13)

The assault on liberals as American traitors had begun in earnest at this meeting and Coulter received much adieu by the audience she was speaking. As Patrick Martin points out the right wing crowd “espouses a toxic combination of Christian fundamentalism, American chauvinism and militarism.” The entire right wing of the Republican Party which does not even extend to the moderate base of the party has taken America by storm. Despite denials of liberal this and liberal that the Republican Party’s extreme right wing base has seen “the emergence within the political establishment of a significant fascist layer, cultivated and promoted by sections of corporate America and the media, which now plays a dominant role in the Republican Party and wields enormous influence within the Bush administration” (14)

Coulter supported Ashcroft having more authority, including the Patriot Act. She agreed with Ashcroft in lessening the probable cause standards, while increasing surveillance powers. No more investigations were necessary to Coulter, who also advocated dropping bombs in what amounted to retaliatory strikes. Coulter praised the Supreme Court’s rule that supported Ashcroft’s security measures as vindication of the right-wing’s ability to make laws. Coulter says the Bush administration is not legally bound to hold open court hearings regarding detainees, stating that “sadly, the Constitution does not require that national security be compromised,” in response to what liberals might object to. (15) Disregarding habeas corpus and international laws pertaining to modern warfare, Coulter said that:

We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week. The nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or "religious" profiling.” (16)

In contrast to the extremism of Coulter, there is more reason found with the thoughts of Nobel Peace Prize Winner Jody Williams who urged caution with any response America should undertake following the attacks. Coulter assessments are ill-tempered compared to the levity of Williams’ view, who said that “we profoundly condemn yesterday's cruel attacks in the United States and express our condolences to the victims and their loved ones. This was an assault not merely on one nation or one people, but on principles of respect for civilian life cherished by all people. We urge all governments to unite to investigate this crime, to prevent its recurrence, and to bring to justice those who are responsible” (17) What is clear is that Williams is an authentic peace activist and Coulter promotes any right-wing extreme measure of the ideologues in the Bush administration.

Unlike Coulter’s assertions that any investigation take place, the fact is, a shabby one essentially was undertaken in non-existent form. I have my doubts of the version that President Bush has told the American people of the 9-11 attacks. President Bush has made many wild assertions since the attacks. The Patriot Act is one of these measures that has emanated from a strong public relations effort, but these measures enacted have not been seriously challenged because of the fight of global terrorism. Does the United States government have the audacious right to make International law in its image? Who will stop the language or actions of the Bush administration from implementing any policy measure at their will because of this tragedy which still has more unanswered questions than definitive answers, within the American legal system. It appears that the United States whose “people {are} committed to justice and law and human rights” have been living with the Bush administration which has, in fact, brought itself to “descend to the level of the perpetrators of such acts,” which the Human Rights organization warned against. (18) Arresting people and detaining them in secret locations is not following justice or laws. The Bush administration must take action with reason over impulse to combat global terrorism. (19) The Hunan Rights Organization for Peace said:

"There are people and governments in the world who believe that in the struggle against terrorism, ends always justify means. But that is also the logic of terrorism. Whatever the response to this outrage, it must not validate that logic. Rather, it must uphold the principles that came under attack yesterday, respecting innocent life and international law. That is the way to deny the perpetrators of this crime their ultimate victory.” (20)

Coulter also supported the Patriot Act in her Federalist Society-like posture, but was against any questioning of Ashcroft by the likes of former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Pat Leahy. (21) Her wild claims that Democrats like Leahy or liberals want more terrorist attacks on the United States is preposterous, which borders on the pathological, if not downright far right extremism. Coulter considers Ashcroft as an American hero, who should be emulated, rather than criticized about the detention practices of the Bush administration, and revels in delight that liberals have become disenchanted with the de-emphasis of civil liberties. Endorsing Ashcroft, Coulter said:

“No matter what defeatist tack liberals take, real Americans are behind our troops 100 percent, behind John Ashcroft 100 percent, behind locking up suspected terrorists 100 percent, behind surveillance of Arabs 100 percent. Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.” (22)

In objective terms, there was very limited questioning of Ashcroft who did not make himself available for more than an hour of testimony in the Senate’s Judiciary Committee. The questioning of Ashcroft was limited and contrived to the wishes of the Bush administration. During the questioning of Ashcroft there were time limits placed on the question and answer session. In this hearing there was “the customary five-minute rule--no member could question Ashcroft for more than five minutes” leading to ineffective questioning despite the critical nature of this bill before Congress. The Democrats did not ask tough questions overall and acted conciliatory in their own political quest not to look weak in fighting the war on terror or to divide the nation as some Senators warned the Democrats not to do. Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia gave Bush and Ashcroft unequivocal support and blasted anyone who dared criticize inferring they would be aiding killers if they went against Ashcroft’s pronouncements. (23) Miller said "let Attorney General Ashcroft do his job.... These nitpickers need to find another nit to pick. They need to stop protecting the rights of terrorists." (24) In line with the Bush mantra of fighting terrorists Senator Orrin Hatch, also on the Judiciary Committee and Federalist Society Member, said that Ashcroft should not be subjected to an "aggressive oversight" campaign by Democratic Senators since the Executive needs to do their job, free of prevention by more legislation against frivolous requests. Hatch viewed the lack of cooperation with Ashcroft’s requests as being simply “counterproductive” to the security of the United States. He said this was making the Justice Department waste “all its time responding to inquiries from our committee...and none of its time actually tracking down terrorists.” (25) Not only did Ashcroft defend the Bush administration’s point of view effectively, but he was given a free pass by the spineless Democrats, minus one, in the Senate, but more importantly, was not subjected to any tough questions by Democrats. During the hearings on the Patriot Act, Senate Democrats put up little resistance in the Judiciary Committee as well as on the floor, allowing Attorney General Ashcroft to slide by with ease, and in a conciliatory, deferential, manner. David Corn of the Nation said that “as he defended the Administration's policies, Ashcroft ably diverted or absorbed most of their thrusts. He was rarely placed on the spot. The Democrats' criticism was generally tempered and dispassionate.” (26)

In conclusion, Bushworld has people running around telling lies and justifying deceptive tactics used all along the airwaves and in print journalism. The Bush administration claims high standards while acting as a Mafia-type organization in the tactics used and the methods of selling propaganda as their flawed analysis in regard to WMD being in Iraq yet not found because there were none to begin with. In other words, the Bush administration lied about the reasons for war yet had their runners in the public domain telling the nation and media cable channels that it was okay to drop bombs on innocent civilian targets. The political discourse in America has been damaged if not outright poisoned by right wing propagandists organizations such the Near East Policy Middle East Forum. Loudmouth cheerleaders of the Bush administration from FOX News and talk radio to those propagandists for war against Iraq. Those professional propagandists for war against Iraq like Laurie Myloroie, Judith Miller, and other mainstream news organizations have poisoned the political discourse for the unforeseen future and in large proportions, in America. Its these propagandists who are able to manufacture the consent of the public that policymakers commit acts of aggression as the war in Iraq so clearly demonstrates. Bushworld also has people like Coulter and Pipes there at the media’s moment notice to ably point fingers of accusation, yet not to be confronted in an equal or substantial way to their knee-jerk assumptions based upon their fringe right-wing biased opinions. Just remind Pipes of the first amendment while Coulter needs to come up with a much better working definition of liberalism. One does not need to read Coulter’s books either. One only has to watch her for fifteen minutes to get a real view of her mean-spirited, vicious tone as well as her knee-jerk comments which poisons the political discourse in the public domain.

1. Anticoulter: Quotes from Ann Coulter

http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/quotes.html

2. David Brock: “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,” Three Rivers Press, (New York, NY, 2003), p 197.

3. Patrick Martin: “Conference of US right-wingers hears call to execute John Walker: Let liberals know “they can be killed too”, says TV commentator” February 27, 2002www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/coul-f27.shtml -18k

4. Ann Coulter: “This Is War: We should invade their countries” September 13, 2001

5. Ann Coulter: “This Is War: We should invade their countries” September 13, 2001

6. Ann Coulter: “This Is War: We should invade their countries” September 13, 2001 www.anncoulter.org/columns.html - 32k -

7. Ann Coulter: “This Is War: We should invade their countries” September 13, 200

8. Patrick Martin: “Conference of US right-wingers hears call to execute John Walker: Let liberals know “they can be killed too”, says TV commentator” February 27, 2002www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/coul-f27.shtml - 18k

9. Patrick Martin: “Conference of US right-wingers hears call to execute John Walker: Let liberals know “they can be killed too”, says TV commentator” February 27, 2002.10. Ann Coulter: “Liberalism And Terrorism: Different Stages Of Same Disease” July 3, 2002. www.anncoulter.org/columns.html - 32k -

10. Ann Coulter: “Liberalism And Terrorism: Different Stages Of Same Disease” July 3, 2002. www.anncoulter.org/columns.html - 32k -

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Martin: “Conference of US right-wingers hears call to execute John Walker: Let liberals know “they can be killed too”, says TV commentator” February 27, 200215. Coulter: “Liberalism And Terrorism: Different Stages Of Same Disease” July 3, 2002

16. Coulter: “This Is War: We should invade their countries” September 13, 2001

17. Jeff Trussel: “LIFESAVER HERO: JODY WILLIAMS”
myhero.com/hero.asp?hero=JodyWilliams - 24k

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21 Ann Coulter: “Liberalism And Terrorism: Different Stages Of Same Disease” July 3, 2002

22. Ibid.

23. David Corn: “Ashcroft Skates” The Nation, posted online on December 6, 2001. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011217&s=corn20011206

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid

26. Ibid.