Coulter Conservatism

The moment Karl Rove knew he was not going to be charged with a crime he went back to doing what he does best. Smearing—or Coultering—his opponents. At a recent event, Rove declared that if Jack Murtha had his way, terrorist Al Zarqawi would never have been captured. But Rove conveniently missed the bigger point:

If Kerry or Gore had been President they wouldn’t have created the mess that gave rise to Zarqawi.

The Bush invasion of Iraq made Zarqawi the terrorist he was, and jump started a new Queda cell in the mismanaged turmoil of Iraq. But Rove won’t take responsibility for that any more than he will take responsibility for leaking a CIA operative’s name to journalist Matt Cooper.

In a TV interview, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman felt emboldened to ask critics if they "owe Karl Rove an apology?" Only after Rove apologizes for leaking. In other words, when hell freezes over. Apparently, according to Bush, if it isn’t against the law, it can’t be bad. Or immoral or unethical. Those are his so-called values.

But Rove wasn’t finished. At the same age soft, saggy Karl Rove was turning the College Republicans into a hate organization, John Kerry and John Murtha were dodging bullets and winning medals on the front lines of war. Now Rove has the disgusting audacity to denigrate their service by suggesting that "they may be with you for the first shots. But they're not going . . . to be with you for the tough battles."

Rove failed to mention that neither he nor his buddies Dick and Dubya have ever served in a war. They won't even be with you for the first shots! Rove and Cheney aren’t warriors, they are garden-variety nerds. Cheney can’t even handle a gun properly. And in college, Bush wasn’t an athlete--he was a cheerleader. Not that there is anything wrong with being a nerd or a cheerleader. It’s just wrong to pretend that you’re a tough guy, and slander and smear true heroes, when you are neither. Unindicted...and unethical.

Rove wasn’t the only conservative making hypocritical, idiotic statements this week. In a recent interview, Conservative David Horowitz declared that "you cannot support the troops and not support the war." Well David, speak for yourself. Most of the rest of us apparently have a greater flexibility of mind, depth of sense and a grasp of basic logic than you do. You might as well have said, "you can’t support the GOP and not support Jack Abramoff."

In today’s Congresional war debate, Georgia Rep Charlie Norwood asked "do we have the will to win?" But he and his Republican colleagues have never had the backbone to ask, much less answer, a more fundamental question:

Do we have the will to confront the mistakes and incompetence that got us into an unnecessary war, and hold those responsible to account.

Also, Ann Coulter remained on the airwaves this week, trying to claw her way back to the land of sanity by criticizing Democrats for using tragedy victims and limbless war veterans as spokespeople. But her statement reveals an ugly truth:

Because Republicans "argue" by slandering, smearing and assassinating character, the Democrats have been forced to speak through people whose character is more virtuous than the scum who attack them.

Perhaps Ann should do what so many 9/11 widows have done. Create a charitable foundation for the betterment of the world. Then again, do we really need the Ann Coulter Foundation for Anger, Hatred, Hypocrisy, Inaccuracy, Exaggeration, Superstition and Intolerance?