[Rokenn]

Here is a good start:

Say what?

Yes, I know that I shouldn't even bother with this woman. Commenting on Ann Coulter generally raises the activity of shooting fish in barrels to that of succesfully capturing Bigfoot using a Unicorn as bait. But Atrios caught a masterpiece from Coulter this morning, which needs to be shared, and then discussed briefly as a lesson for no less than the very survival of the human race as the dominant species on the food chain. Atrios noted this column by Coulter, in which she makes the following statement, reprinted verbatim: In the wake of Dean's success, the entire Democratic Dream Team is beginning to sound like Dr. Demento. On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did. Okay, let's, without resorting to petty attacks on Coulter's appearance or useless stuff like that, discuss how this is both the most dangerous and most stupid thing Coulter's ever written. For starters, there's the obvious that Atrios so accurately accentuated: Saddam Hussein didn't hit us on 9-11, Ann. Al-Qaeda did. Even if, as Ann obviously has been told to believe, Saddam Hussein was somehow secretly bin Laden's lover, nothing, and no one, remotely related to his regime was in any of the four planes two years ago. There's no way to even re-interpret this statement. It's just wrong. This is a severe problem for Coulter seeing how it's the opening statement of her column- a place that "professional writers" like to refer to as the basis of your argument. Now, Coulter proves something here: there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity; the former being something you choose. Coulter, for all her ignorance, as well as obnoxiousness, callousness, greed, racism, vanity, avarice, duplicity, envy, pride, viciousness, and blatant sexual frustration, is not, in the textbook-studying sense, an idiot. She, and I'm sure her editors, know damn well that Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for 9/11. However, a recent poll shows that nearly 70% of the country believes this. It is ludicrous to suggest that 70% of American came up with this conclusion on their own, as if the heartland of the country and every major city equally enacted a CSI-style investigation into foreign affairs and gathered evidence while questioning terrorism operatives in undercover missions. No, they think Saddam caused 9/11 because people like Coulter are telling them this as if it's a fact. See, that's why this article is dangerous, and contrary to Atrios' initial suggestion, brilliant in Coulter's plans. The point of Coulter's argument has nothing to do with the rest of the article: it has to do with the very phrasing of that quote up there. She's not suggesting that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, she's telling you. And she's using her complete lack of backing for this to accent her attempt to convince the reader that what she just said must be true because of (ta dah!) the conclusiveness of what she just said. Wither the right-wing pundits go the mainstream media points: by next week, Limbaugh will state Saddam as the 9/11 mastermind as fact. A few days later, Hannity and Brit Hume will have infected it into Fox News. Why should this be countered? It's easier to pass off something 70% of the country believes as fact than to refute it- regardless of the fact that, you know, it's complete and utter bullshit. So, in conclusion: Ann Coulter is not an idiot for writing this. She is in fact a scheming, psychotic monster. And frankly, that's scary enough to point out.