Firstly it reconfirmed that alot of the time there is really no substance at all to what Coulter says. Her opening monologue would have worked really well if it had been Bill Maher doing it (and in fact his followed a similar format) but that’s because he is a comedian. Coulter is meant to be a political commentator. She is supposed to have facts and ideas, instead she has one-liners and cheap shots.
And who the fuck says that the US press was openly critical of Bush but overly favours Obama? Is Coulter from a parallel universe? Or is she just trying to rewrite history? The US press is a lapdog that blindly supports whoever is in power. The only exception seems to be Fox (who blindly supports the Republicans 100% of the time).
Anyway something Coulter said that was of substance came as something of a bombshell to me. She said that the idea that battling terrorism was a job for law enforcement and intelligence agencies was wrong because state sponsorship of terrorism is a real issue. Now we can argue whether that is true or not. For my money I would compare the relatively small number of deaths to terrorism with the far larger numbers of people killed by poverty, disease and US bombing.
But it is what Coulter said next that really blew me away. She said this had been a problem since Jimmy Carter had “allowed” Iran to overthrow the Shah.
Coulter is saying that what Carter should have done was to use America’s military might to step and squash a grass-roots, popular uprising and reinstall a brutal dictator.
(She also leaves out that it was America who destroyed the democratic government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and reinstated the oppressive regime of the Shah thus laying the groundwork for the Islamist revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini).
And why is she saying that? Because she is trying to explain why it was necessary for America to deploy its full military might in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So what Coulter means by this is that America needs to stop terrorism by overthrowing governments that it doesn’t like. This is important because it relates to America’s past actions all over the world, particularly in South America. Through the 20th Century (and even today) America had a policy of destroying any government, including democratic ones, that refused to let US big business operate freely. Typically these democratic governments were replaced with military dictatorships who were easily bribed by US interests.
What Coulter is saying is important because when people like Chomsky point out America’s prior use of force in other sovereign nations people call them “extremists”, “whack-jobs” or “conspiracy theorists”. Yet here we have Ann Coulter openly saying something that no mainstream conservative has the balls to: that America went into Iraq and Afghanistan because they wanted to change the government into one that served them. Further that they are right to do so, and worse still that they should use this tactic in EVERY country that has a government they don’t like.
And remember Ann Coulter isn’t some crazy person either. She is far from the mainstream but is still regarded as an important political commentator.
So is she crazier than anyone thinks? Or is she just saying what others are thinking?
[Standard Disclaimer: this post was entirely my own opinion and was not paid for in any way, directly or otherwise, by anyone or anything that stands to gain in any way from the ideas expressed herein.]