Ann Coulter on Imus

MSNBC ^ | 01/07/05 | JimVT

[JimVT]

7:29 a.m.

[dmw]

Yeah, I should be in the shower now getting ready for work but decided to wait and see how she and Imus interact. She be interesting!

[PilloryHillary]

Aren't you supposed to post a pic of Ann? Here's a pic....

[Liberty Valance]

Ann was talking about her doll. Said the skirt was life size. LOL!
I actually refer to her doll as an action figure...:o)

[PilloryHillary]

I think Imus kinda likes Ms. Coulter.... ;-)

[Jeff Blogworthy]

Ann the harem girl - I like it.

[BibChr]

Like this.

[GRRRRR]

Image #1 BEAUTY

Image #2 BEAST

Ann says she LIKES Kid Rock, listening alone in her apartment, blushes at SOME of the lyrics...

[bikepacker67]

Whoa! Did B.F.T. (Big Fat Teddy) actually say that??!

Where's the FR thread?

[GRRRRR]

If ANN says BFT said it, then it MUST be true!

I'll ask her later...LOL!

[Liberty Valance]

Just a short Ann interview can start the day off right.
Go Ann go!



More coffee~

[mathluv]

Details, please. I don't get MSNBC.

[JimVT]

Details, please. I don't get MSNBC.

About a 15 minute interview...Ann was sharp and humorous as usual...

A highlight for me was when Imus asked her if our Tsunami aid would make the Muslims "love us." Said Ann: "That is not a priority for me....I'd prefer to have them fear us!"

[Liberty Valance]

Imus was trying to pair-up Ann with Craig Crawford...
Ann wanted his W-2 form and his accurate height.
That was pretty funny.
Everybody wants to get Ann a date.

[Living Free in NH]

Does anyone have that Kennedy audio clip that she was talking about?

[WebTalk]

Ann promised to e-mail the tape to an Imus producer, "in the next 30 seconds".

I hope they get it and go to town on Teddy...too funny!

One of those " you can't make this stuff up...moments.

BTW, I reached a point months before the election when I just couldn't stand to tune into Imus any more...but that's over now.

[mware]

Some guy called into the Laura Ingram show yesterday and mention him talking about water torture.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

[Jeff Blogworthy]

Here is the transcript where Kennedy talks about waterboarding. He does not say precisely what Ann says he did as far as i can tell. I could not find the word "embarrassed."

nd we can get -- will get into the various statutes that have been passed in recent times which would indicate that. Now, the Post article states you chaired several meetings at which various interrogation techniques were discussed. These techniques included the threat of live burial and waterboarding, whereby the detainee is strapped to a board, forcibly pushed under water, wrapped in a wet towel and made to believe he might drown. The article states that you raised no objection, and without consulting military and State Department experts -- they were not consulted, they were not invited to important meetings -- they might have been important to some, but we know what Secretary Taft has said about his exclusion from these -- experts in laws of torture and war (prove/approve ?) the resulting memo this gave CIA interrogators the legal blessings they sought. Now, was it the CIA that asked you?

[Liberty Valance]

"Whoa! Did B.F.T. (Big Fat Teddy) actually say that??!
Where's the FR thread?'

I saw it yesterday on the live thread on the Gonzales confirmation hearings.

[Jeff Blogworthy]

oops. Here is some more there the discussion picks up again. This is closer.

KENNEDY: Could you just -- I want to point out, if it's true, as the Post reported, that you held several meetings at which the legality of interrogation techniques, such as threat of live burial and water boarding were discussed. Do you remember that?

GONZALES: Senator, I have a recollection that we had some discussions in my office. But let me be very clear with the committee: It is not my job to decide which type of methods of obtaining information from terrorists would be most effective. \

GONZALES: That job of responsibility falls to folks within the agencies. It is also not my job to make the ultimate decision about whether or not those methods would in fact meet the requirements of the anti- torture statute. That would be a job for the Department of Justice. And I never influenced or pressured the department to bless any of these techniques. I viewed it as their responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not a procedure or method of questioning of these terrorists that an agency wanted would, in fact, be lawful.

KENNEDY: Well, just as an attorney, as a human being, I would have thought that if there were recommendations that were so blatantly and flagrantly over the line in terms of torture, that you might have recognized them. I mean, it certainly appears to me that water boarding, with all its descriptions about drowning someone to that kind of a point, would come awfully close to getting over the border, and that you'd be able to at least say today, There were some that were recommended or suggested on that, but I certainly wouldn't have had a part of that, as a human being. But as I understand you are saying now that no matter what they recommended or what they discussed, there was not going to be anything in there that was going to be too bad or too outrageous for you to at least to raise some objection.

GONZALES: Well, Senator, of course we had some discussions about it. And I can't tell you today whether or not I said that's offensive, that's not offensive. But it seems to me, it's the job of the lawyers to make a determination as to whether or not something is lawful or not and then for the policy-makers, the principals to decide whether or not this is a method of receiving information from terrorists is something that we want to pursue that the lawyers have deemed lawful under the directive of a president who says that we should do everything that we can to win this war on terror, so long as we are meeting our legal obligations.

KENNEDY: Earlier today -- you know, this is all against a background, as you know, Mr. Gonzales, of a series of statutes on torture that the Congress has passed in the recent times. I mean, this is not a new issue. We had the federal anti-torture statute in '94 that both President Reagan and President Bush, unanimous committee, the Federal War Crimes Act of '96 -- the Uniform Code of Military Justice goes back to 1950. The Convention Against Torture ratified by Congress: one was domestic, the other international. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1992, provides no one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment. And then last year, Congress reaffirmed, virtually unanimously, that the nation's commitment not to engage in torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading. So this isn't -- you know, this is a subject matter that Republicans and Democrats have spoken out very clearly, and many of us find, and perhaps you do, certainly you do at the present time, that the Bybee amendment certainly was in conflict with those particular statutes. But let me ask you this: In these reports on Guantanamo...