Preposterous Pundit Gets Slapped In the Toque

Could rightwing harpy Ann Coulter actually be an America-hating fifth columnist? Doug Ireland cites an exchange between the golden geyser of truth and the CBC's Bob McKeown, in which Coulter hands the Canadians their first clear victory over the U.S. since the War of 1812:

Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter: "I don't think that's right."

McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"

McKeown: "Uh no. Canada …second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."

Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."

McKeown: "No."

Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."

McKeown tags out in script:

"Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."

Click here to see the unembarrassable Coulter standing up for her right to be wrong. (Grammar note to McKeown: Unless you're pointing out that Iraq didn't send troops to Vietnam, you should say "As in the case of Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam.")

Comments

[Craig]

Many Canadians did fight in Viet Nam; the Canadian government, however, sent no troops.

So Coulter is wrong (both in assuming Trudeau was ever a "loyal friend" to the US in the sense she means, and in thinking that Canada sent troops officially), but it is a potentially understandable error.

[sage]

Ann's not good for much, except...you know.

[UFP]

Throwing a saddle on and rustling up cattle?

[sage]

Good one.

[Slag]

On the January 28 O'Reilly Factor, UPI journalist Rachel Marsden made a passing comment that Canadians had fought in Vietnam; this was in regard to an anti-Fox documentary aired by the CBC in which it was stated Canada had not sent troops to Vietnam. I don't know who's right on this one, but Coulter isn't alone in thinking that Canadians fought over there. Maybe Coulter got her facts from Marsden.

[D Anghelone]

Many Canadians did fight in Viet Nam; the Canadian government, however, sent no troops.

Nearly sixty thousand which is astounding when considering what was the population of Canada. And most of them were knowing violating Canadian law.

[Jim Walsh]

Doesn't matter, you know. Coulter could pistol-whip an old lady in broad daylight and her neocon following would would probably say the old crone had it coming...

[gaius marius]

unembarrassable Coulter

lol -- a better description of 21st c media personalities in general does not exist. indeed, is it possible for anyone to be embarassed anymore in the age of total emancipation?

[gaius marius]

except by misspelling "embarrassed"...

*cheeks blush, averts eyes*

[gawdamman]

I like Ann....alot. Why? She does such a good job pissing off you lefties....this used to be a libertarian sight but now it sounds like the "Democratic Underground"-truly sad.

[Brian]

Korea, Vietnam, what's the difference? These guys just make stuff up all the time and by the time they get called on it it's old news. Quite an effective gimmick.

the oil will pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. . .

[fyodor]

If I were as tribally minded as gawdamman, I would like Noam Chomsky for pissing off conservatives, etc, etc. Geez... Well, at least he admits it.

[SPD]

I've already thought of Coulter as "That Girl" -- you know the one -- the kind who gets a little too drunk and yells ill-advised and off-base comments way too loud at the other party guests.

She reminds of Rush Limbaugh, except with smaller breasts. It's hard to take either one seriously. I don't think she's meant to be taken seriously, sort of like Howard Stern, Coulter's merely a vehicle of self-promotion. The avatar of the sorry state of so-called modern "journalism."

[Jack Wayne]

Tim,

What an insightful post. Keep 'em coming.

[andy]

"I don't think she's meant to be taken seriously"

Not among rational people, but most people aren't rational, I'm afraid.

[D Anghelone]

"Canadian products shipped to Vietnam via the United States included ammunition, grenades, aircraft, chemical defoliants, navigation systems, weapons release computers, artillery shells, rocket warheads, and demolition materials. Even Canadian boots, green berets, and rye whiskey made it to Vietnam. As did large quantities of napalm.

The Canadian government claimed to have no formal knowledge of products sold to the United States being shipped elsewhere. But Cabinet documents from that period released in 1986 indicate otherwise. In September 1965, then Secretary for External Affairs Paul Martin Sr. informed Cabinet that the Pentagon had procured items in Canada that were destined for Vietnam. Martin, says Levant, "candidly noted that he was bringing this matter to Cabinet's attention not because it represented any change in policy but because it might lead to criticism of the government.""

Peacekeeper

[gaius marius]

Why? She does such a good job pissing off you lefties....

because it's all just a football game for some.

[Cletus Nelson]

I'd like to know what Ann was like during her "deadhead" phase...I can totally picture her as a hippie---as a matter of fact, I think she looks eerily like "Jean" from the BILLY JACK movies...

[gawdamman]

Nope, it's more like...."if it quacks like a duck-it must be a duck". And quit making fun of football-are you a pussy or something?

[gawdamman]

🙂

[thoreau]

Ann Coulter is either a genius or a complete lunatic. I mean, anybody can go around saying inflammatory shit, but very few can get a lot of people to agree with them. Even fewer can make a comfortable living in the process.

I'm telling you, either a genius or a lunatic. Maybe she's an idiot savant.

[SPD]

"if it quacks like a duck-it must be a duck"

And if it squawks like a nut, it's Ann Coulter. 🙂

[Lloyd R]

I think D Anghelone is basically correct. A lot of Canadians signed up to fight in Vietnam (or served in a U.S. uniform in the Vietnam era). I think his figure of 60,000 is too high (and by e-mail he seems to agree); but there may have been as many as 30,000, or roughly the same as the number of U.S. draft dodgers and deserters who came to Canada.

I posted a bit on this here:
http://lloydtown.blogeasy.com/article.view.run?articleID=19750

As for factories contributing to war production while the government pretended otherwise: absolutely.

[Brian]

Yeah, thoreau, if you think of it, our political discourse is in the hands of guys who wouldn't be too out of place ranting on a street corner somewhere. Just clean em up and give them some meds to slow them down a bit and 3 hours on the radio.

The republicans have an army of them . . . the dems have only managed to dig up Michael Moore from a cardboard box somewhere. I'm not a dem but I like gridlock - so try harder guys.

[Doc]

Here's O'Riley getting corrected from the same CBC series...

http://tinyurl.com/7yhaa

[thoreau]

A lot of Canadians signed up to fight in Vietnam (or served in a U.S. uniform in the Vietnam era). I think his figure of 60,000 is too high (and by e-mail he seems to agree); but there may have been as many as 30,000, or roughly the same as the number of U.S. draft dodgers and deserters who came to Canada.

Was there some sort of exchange program? We send them a hippie, they send us a soldier?

[D Anghelone]

As for factories contributing to war production while the government pretended otherwise: absolutely.

I think it's interesting that the Canadian government passed a law against Canadians serving in the US military in Vietnam but, AFAIK, did not prosecute any Canadians for breaking that law.

[termagant]

Regarding Ann -- she is the right's answer to Mort Sahl (before her there was a brief confusing interval in which the right's answer to Mort Sahl was actually Mort Sahl). I think she's brilliant, but she can't be understood in the same way as Limbaugh or Will. Everyone in the business gets a fact wrong now & then; omniscience is the standard of care for public auditors not pundits.

Regarding Mr. Gawdamman's complaint -- Republicans have conspicuously made room for libertarians in their big tent. Indeed, I used to think that a libertarian was basically a Republican with an erection. However, in recent years Republicans have tended to be dangerous in eschatological ways while Democrats have remained consistently, shrilly annoying. It's a frequency vs. severity tradeoff. There is also a social stigma associated with Republicans. Libertarians will improve their standing with attractive, fashionable Democrats and their elite allies by disproportionately ridiculing Republicans. At least that's my strategy.

[Les]

"I think she's brilliant, but she can't be understood in the same way as Limbaugh or Will."

I think she's brilliant, too. But in exactly the same way a professional wrestler is. She has her "character" (Liberal Destroyer) and her "shtick" ("I WILL SUCK THE MEAT FROM THE BONES OF THE WEAK LIBERALS. I SWEAR, THIS MONDAY IN TOLEDO, THE RING WILL BE RED WITH THE BLOOD OF THE LIBERALS!!") What's really interesting, in the same way for professional wrestling, is that some people take her seriously.

[gaius marius]

I think she's brilliant

as farce, i agree. but some people actually take her seriously.

[gaius marius]

oops -- kudos, mr les! 🙂

[The Wine Commonsewer]

"the point of view has moved so far off into the fascistic right in recent years"

An interesting perspective Gaius but I don't see it. The country's over-riding philosophy has moved progressively left for six decades. From personal responsibility to suing McDonalds for making you fat and from the isolationism of pre WWII to GloboCop.

Fer Christ's sake JFK would be a Republican these days.

[Gary Gunnels]

This defense of Coulter is fairly Clintonesque. 🙂

Now, several thousand Canadians did fight in Viet Nam (one was a MOH winner as I recall); but Coulter was clearly wrong regarding her claim and she should have the tits to admit her error and move on.

U.S. allies in Viet Nam:

U.S.
South Korea
Australia
New Zealand
Philippines
South Viet Nam

________________________________

Coulter isn't the only one of these talking heads to blurt out something like this; a few years ago Horowitz claimed that organizations like the "Weather Underground" were the first terrorist organizations in U.S. history (presumably he was trying to smear the left as the seminal perpetrators of terrorist violence in the U.S.). Horowitz is wrong of course; all he need do is survey the history of the U.S. in the 19th century to discover heinous acts of terrorism committed by terrorist organizations (and one need not even look to the KKK, the Knights of the White Magnolia, etc. to discover this).

[Mo]

TWC,
I think you're both wrong. The nation hasn't gotten more left and it's definitely not to the fascistic right, but it has shifted rightward. Congress has moved to the right, Clinton was on the right side of Democrats. I don't think that libertarians are becoming Democrats, rather I believe libertarians are leaving Republicans.

a) They all spend like drunken sailors. At least the Dems are honest.
b) Gridlock is better than agreement between both chambers of Congress and the presidency
c) Republicans have started to learn to use the victim language of the Dems (see the academic Bill of Rights or cries of racism if Dems oppose a minority candidate)
d) Emminent domain. Both parties suck wrt this.

I could go on, but there's not much to like about either party. It seems like libs are joining the Republicans because we're opposed to the current governance. That governance is solely Republicans. Free-spending, freedom restricting Republicans. We'd be the same with Dems in charge, but at the current rate that won't happen for a decade or so.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

Nearly any foreign national can join one of the armed services (this isn't some unusual U.S. institution either - during WWII the RAF accepted foreign nationals to fight in the Battle of Britain*).

*Aircrew nationality in the Battle of Britain:

Great Britain - 2,340
Australia - 32
Barbados - 1
Belgium - 28
Canada - 112
Czechoslovakia - 89
France - 13
Ireland - 10
Jamaica - 1
Newfoundland - 1
New Zealand - 127
Poland - 145
Rhodesia - 3
South Africa - 25
United States - 9

These are the RAF's official figures and may not reflect the actual nationality of a particular pilot.

[Dynamist]

I'm not convinced that Coulter, Limbaugh and the righty heads are opinion leaders. Rather than getting people to agree with their punditiousness, they seem to articulate what many of the lunkheads in the locker room are already thinking.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

Another example might suffice to illustrate my point:

During Louis XV's campaigns in Flanders, Scottish and Irish formations played significant roles in Maurice de Saxe's victories at Yrpes, Courtrai and Menin in 1744 and 1745 in the Battle of Fontenoy during the War of Austrian Sucession.

[termagant]

Les -- The wrestling bit was nice. But there is a stand-up rythim to her columns. She's verbally funnier than Al Franken ever was, conceding that he relied on concepts rather than one-liners.

Now what gets people unhinged is her deadly serious premise: leftists are evil. Clearly as a description of nature that is utterly incoherent. But the evil of Republicans has been a perfectly respectable premise for leftist comedians -- Garrison Keillor having most recently advanced it to his profit. And humour feeds off exaggeration and outrage. (In at least Dean's case, humourlessness does so as well).

Even Homer nods. But I think she is sharper and funnier than anyone the left has at the moment, the great Sahl possibly excepted.

[Les]

termagant,

I just want to make people happy. But seriously, to me, what makes her more wrestling than stand-up (though I agree with you about her rhythm, if not her actual wit) is the hyper-hyperbole (non-Christians should be forced to be Christians, people who disagree with the Bush administration are traitors, "liberals hate America"). If she'd at least admit that she's exaggerating to make a point (instead of rejecting that premise and reiterating her insane claims), I'd think of her as a comedian instead of a clown.

[Gary Gunnels]

termagent,

I don't like her because she writes rather dimwitted things just to piss off the left. Witness her argument that First Amendment liberties must be curtailed while those of the Second shouldn't because the Second is more important. It became pretty clear to me that she was just trying to yank the chain of the left by making such a moronic statement. And my retort is that I want the liberties found in both amendments to be equally defended to the greatest expanse possible.

[hardLeft]

Cletus Nelson at February 8, 2005 12:01 PM
like "Jean" from the BILLY JACK movies...
ok i can see that.

thoreau at February 8, 2005 12:13 PM
I'm telling you, either a genius or a lunatic. Maybe she's an idiot savant.
the correct answer is:
d. idiot lunatic.

Lloyd R at February 8, 2005 12:24 PM
As for factories contributing to war production while the government pretended otherwise: absolutely.
absolutely commerce(free markets)/capitalism never lets a little think like the law get in its way.

Brian at February 8, 2005 12:27 PM
The republicans have an army of them . . . the dems have only managed to dig up Michael Moore from a cardboard box somewhere. I'm not a dem but I like gridlock - so try harder guys.
lol

termagant at February 8, 2005 12:42 PM
Regarding Ann ...Everyone in the business gets a fact wrong now & then; omniscience is the standard of care for public auditors not pundits.
the right seems to have reversed this truism, and now and then gets a fact correct/right.

Regarding Mr. Gawdamman's complaint ...Indeed, I used to think that a libertarian was basically a Republican with an erection
will be adding that to my insult arsenal.

Les at February 8, 2005 01:14 PM
really interesting, in the same way for professional wrestling, is that some people take her seriously.
would have to disagree with you on that, most professional wrestling fans understand its entertainment and so do the wrestlers.
she on the other hand takes herself quite serious.

Dynamist at February 8, 2005 02:00 PM
Rather than getting people to agree with their punditiousness, they seem to articulate what many of the lunkheads in the locker room are already thinking.
whoop there it is!!!

[Isaac Bartram]

As a member, along with India and Poland, of the international Supervisory Commission to enforce the 1954 ceasefire Canada would have had a serious conflict of interest supporting the US.

[Andrew]

GG

Any permanent resident of the US may join the armed forces, regardless of nationality. But no non-residents - with ONE major exception: Philipine citizens have the same status as permanent residents...it goes back to when the Philipines were a possession of the US, but Philipinos were not US citizens. Recruiting stations exist throughout the Philipines, and Phillipinos contribute a significant portion of the armed forces, especially Navy.
Anyone enlisted, or honarably discharged from the armed forces has a fast track to US citizenship (if they like) I understand.

[Gary Gunnels]

Andrew,

You're right. I should have more closely qualified my remarks.

[raymond]

Everyone in the business gets a fact wrong now & then;

Maybe it's the stubbornness which is noteworthy.

[Ken Shultz]

Just saw the video--that's the best laugh I've had in a week. Thank you, Ann Coulter--I knew you were good for something.

Regarding the more to the left or right debate, I agree with G. Marius--it's a multi-dimensional thing we're tracking. Still, I think it would be accurate to say that we're in a center-fleeing phase, there's much less common ground than there used to be.

[Stevo Darkly]

Nearly any foreign national can join one of the armed services (this isn't some unusual U.S. institution either - during WWII the RAF accepted foreign nationals to fight in the Battle of Britain.

Bit of trivia: During WW One, before the U.S. joined in, a number of American pilots volunteered to fly fighter planes for France against Germany, as the Escadrille Americaine (American Squadron). When Germany protested that this implied the endorsement of America, which was supposed to be neutral, they changed the name to Escadrille Lafayette. (Debt paid!)

[Freeper]

Me no understand. Once, this site attack Al Gore. And that good! But now ... this site attack Ann Coulter -- JUST LIKE DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! Grrr. Why you like Gore so much?

[Gary Gunnels]

Stevo Darkly,

The French government (and a lot of citizens) still lay wreaths at that group's monument.

Unfortunately the Escadrille Lafayette was shot up pretty bad in the war*; however, their exploits, along with coverage of French soldiers at Verdun**, heavily effected U.S. opinion regarding the war.

*Allied air losses were pretty terrible throughout the war; the Germans dominated the skies until mid-1917.

**Images of French soldiery stacking their comrades like cordwood and the like were especially heartwrenching I think.

[Universal Translator]

Freeper:

I know large words are hard for you people, so I'll try to keep this simple. Libertarians value principle over power. (Translation to Freeperspeak: God is more important than party)

Democrats and Republicans value power over principle. (Freeperspeak: Ds & Rs are the rabble of Jerusalem, libertarians are the true disciples.)

When Republicans abandon libertarian principles, they become the enemy of libertarians. (Freeperspeak: Rs are Judas)

When Democrats stick up for libertarisn principles, they become allies. (Freeperspeak: the heathen Ds can be converted, or at least co-opted.)

I hope this English-to-Freeperspeak translation has been helpful.

[Anonymous]

Can Canadians be so certain that Canadian troops were not in Vietnam? Can they be so certain that Canadian troops are not in Iraq?

"Martin claims the Liberals kept Canada out of the war in Iraq.

Wrong.

Canadian troops have participated in the war in Iraq since the beginning. The Liberals refused to admit this publicly. Worse, they failed to properly support the brave men and women they sent there on our behalf.

And since Paul Martin pushed Jean Chr?en out of office, Canada has sent even more troops to Iraq.

Imagine that. Canadian troops in Iraq fighting terrorism.

Canadians should demand better. Our troops certainly deserve better.

-30-

For more information, please contact the Conservative Press Office: [phone]"

http://www.conservative.ca/english/subpage.asp?t=hl&id=164

[Poustman]

I watched the _Fifth Estate_ episode in which this exchange took place. It was enjoyable.

Now I see that maybe Canada didn't officially send troops, but many Canadians went. So how significant is the disconnect between official policy of a country's government and the feelings/acts of a large number of the citizens?

This site and others like it tire me out. It's so much easier to hold a comfortable, me-congratulating opinion without all this evidence constantly getting in the way and demanding I think again.