Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Ann Coulter's Fog Of Lies About Karl Rove

Reported by Ellen - July 14, 2005 -

There was something different about Ann Coulter's appearance last night on Hannity & Colmes. Was her hair a new shade of blonde? Had she had a facelift? Botox? I couldn't be sure. One thing that hasn't changed is her sensationalized invective disguised as analysis and thought.

Alan Colmes started off the interview by asking an excellent question: "If Karl Rove wasn't revealing something secret, why did he have to speak on double super secret background?"

For a moment, it looked like Coulter might have been genuinely reluctant to talk to a liberal (as the title of her last book claims she is) but I think it was more likely that she had a moment of panic at not having a good answer. After a pause, she began to speak slowly, as if she were trying to think of the right words as she went along.

Because you don't generally read in the press - you know - I think it was all - you didn't see Karl Rove, I think, being quoted on a lot of these things - but I think the point was, um, Clown Wilson was going around implying that he had been sent by the CIA and reported to Dick Cheney's office... I mean, it's amazing if you go back and read these articles now, he uses these - you know - sort of Clintonian legally accurate phrases...

Then, in the same breath, she added, "This whole story has been a fog of lies being sent out by this clown, Wilson." So, was it a fog of lies or Clintonian legally accurate phrases? It's hard to know.

I so wish Colmes had stopped her right then and there and told her it is a disgrace to conservatives to make fun of a public servant who has devoted his life to serving both Republican and Democratic administrations just because she wants to defend Karl Rove (and, of course, bring attention to herself). But I give Colmes at least some points for saying it was unfair to call Wilson a clown, smear him and "do the name calling."

Coulter, who I still maintain has a thing for Colmes, brushed part of her tresses over the side of her head as he spoke and smiled flirtatiously. Colmes continued, "And you talk about something Clintonian (Coulter giggled), when Karl Rove said 'I didn't know her name, I didn't leak her name.' If Bill Clinton said that, you'd say 'ah, there he goes I didn't inhale.' Not revealing the name has nothing to do with whether he revealed her identity."

Coulter: No, of course that's right but you're setting up a straw man. No one is saying, 'Oh, he just said Clown Wilson's wife, but didn't give her name.' That isn't the argument. The argument is he wasn't knowingly revealing a covert agent's undercover status as an undercover agent."

Sorry, Ann, but that's a fog of lies right there. That may be the legal issue but the political issue is clearly the larger, more important part, as Coulter must know full well. And the political issue is that Rove keeps changing his story and contradicting himself about a matter of national security. For example, according to the July 9, 2005 LA Times, "This week, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, was more categorical: 'Karl absolutely did not identify Valerie Plame... . He did not disclose any confidential information... to Cooper or anybody else.'" Then in Byron York's July 12th column for National Review Online, Luskin said that Rove told Time reporter Cooper that "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues (authorized) the trip"

Once again, I wished Colmes had interrupted her to say that it really doesn't matter what kind of a clown she thinks Wilson is or isn't, that the question is whether or not Rove leaked classified information to Time and why did he deny that before admitting it two years later? Instead Coulter continued with her childish name-calling. "The Democrats are taking the position that Clown Wilson could go around telling the world he was sent by the CIA and (that) he was reporting to Dick Cheney, but Republicans can't defend themselves by saying 'No, he wasn't, he was sent by his wife who works at the CIA.' And as for whether she had the authority to send him, that isn't the point. Wilson was denying that his wife had recommended him for the trip... The whole thing is just in a fog of lies because of this clown, Wilson."

More fog, more lies from Coulter because, again, even if Joe Wilson had run away and joined the circus, it wouldn't have had any bearing on Rove's actions regarding Valerie Plame. Coulter, an attorney herself, must surely know that.

When it was Hannity's turn, Ann Coulter's feed was lost (Awww). Hannity reiterated what he said (that just happens to match what Rove's attorney says) during the earlier segment - that Rove was just trying to help out Time reporter Matt Cooper.

In the absence of Coulter, the debate was only between Hannity and Colmes (Comment: They seem to be doing more of this lately and I think it's a positive development.) Colmes asked Hannity, "Then why is it double super secret background?"

Just then, Ann was back, hair freshly tousled.

Hannity answered that it was double super secret "because that's not what the reporter called about. The reporter's about to get in trouble. Karl Rove doesn't want to be quoted on any of this stuff and he said, 'Alright, I'll give you the background and save you from making a fool of yourself' and this is the thanks he gets."

That made Alan Colmes crack up.

Coulter then pronounced that she thought it "highly questionable that (Valerie Plame) is covert at this point." Of course she isn't, not after nearly two years in the news! What does Ann Coulter know about Plame's covert status at the time Rove blabbed about her? Coulter never said. She just said it's illegal to reveal a covert agent. Gee, Ann, isn't that distinction a bit Clintonian? Just how covert does an agent have to be before you feel it's wrong to out them?

Next legal scholar wannabe Hannity chimed in. Thanks to Natalee Holloway, he has lately become an expert on obstruction of justice. Now he's an expert on treasonous disclosure and he has adjudged Rove not guilty. First, though, he had to bash a few of his favorite Democrats. "You have people like John Kerry and Howard Dean (what? He left out Hillary!) and everybody else going over the edge saying that this is illegal - no trial, no evidence - but the person that helped author the law said that her status as undercover must in fact have been classified. It must have been assigned to duty outside the United States within the past years (I suspect Hannity left out a number there - within the past five years, e.g.). And Ann Coulter, even if you don't like Karl Rove and even if you think he's guilty, it does not meet that criteria from a legal standpoint so politically why are people like Dean and Kerry saying fire Rove?" Seems to me Judge Hannity has, himself, gone over the edge in declaring Rove not guilty - no trial, no evidence.

Coulter's feed was lost again so Colmes answered. He said he doesn't know if Rove broke the law but that it's a political problem for the president.

Yup, and if FOX and Hannity aren't worried about it, then why didn't they have any Democratic guests on to discuss it? As a matter of fact, why weren't there any Democratic guests on at all last night?