« | »

The New York Observer’s Ann Coulter Interview

From The New York Observer:

Tea With Miss Coulter

by George Gurley Published: October 2, 2007


Ann Coulter, wearing black sunglasses, a white tank top and capri pants, was sitting on a couch in the Carlyle Hotel’s tea room. It was a few days before the publication of her book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans.

I asked her if the war on terror was still the No. 1 issue.

“It’s the top nine of 10 issues. For Democrats, it’s about number 57. We’ll see, but I think Americans are smarter than we think. We think we know what Americans think as reflected in the mainstream media—well, that has been wrong so many times. But what they ought to know is that this is a far more dangerous war than the Cold War. … This enemy says, ‘We’re willing to die for our cause.’ They do commit suicides for their cause. So how do you deter someone like that? It’s not, ‘Can we deter them?’ It’s, ‘Do they have the technology?’ Because the moment they have it, they will use it. That’s terrifying. And you know who said that before he died, was Jerry Falwell. He said, Christians understand; we care about abortion and gay marriage and everything else, but we understand that the big issue is terrorism.”

So six years now without an attack on our soil?

“How about that? Nothing. We did finally get numbers this week: For years now the government hasn’t been releasing how many of them we’re killing. You think it’s just like this unending holocaust of Americans. At 3,000 dead, it’s the most tepid holocaust I’ve ever heard of. We’ve killed about 20,000 of them, of terrorists, of militants, of Al Qaeda members, and they’ve gotten a little over 3,000 of ours. That is where the war is being fought, in Iraq, that is where we are fighting Al Qaeda. Sorry we have to use your country, Iraqis, but you let Saddam come to power, ha-ha, and we are going to instill democracy in your country.”

How much blame does Bill Clinton deserve for 9/11?

“A lot. Jimmy Carter got the whole thing started, Bill Clinton let it build, build, build, build, build. He wouldn’t deal with it, because he had no credibility on deploying the military. He was a pot-smoking draft dodger, and so when he was presented with credible evidence that this or that country was behind a terrorist attack, he’d just have to look the other way: ‘No, don’t let me hear that. Call in Monica!’… Jimmy Carter gave Islamic craziness its first real foothold. There was no state-sponsored—they were just living in the dirt hating us until they had Iran. How did that happen? Because Americans forgot what it’s like to put a Democrat in charge of national security. Then we have eight years of Bill Clinton ignoring, ignoring, ignoring, ignoring—they’re ginning themselves up, Osama is saying, ‘You have six dead in Somalia and you pull out? We have boys lining up.’ Now this isn’t the Cold War, these aren’t sane but evil white men—these are crazy Islamists. This country—people are under the impression that it could never change, that this can be taken for granted, it can’t be taken away, and this is a terrifying time. I mean, it’s terrifying to think what could happen with a one-term Democrat, any of those Democrats.”

Why do some people believe the terrorist threat has been exaggerated?

“There’s an element in this country that is rooting against America. … These aren’t people who are thinking about America’s interests, so their behavior seems inexplicable to normal, patriotic Americans, but once you realize they are rooting against America, well then, they want to tell people there is no threat, there is no enemy, do nothing, don’t fight back. And they have a comfortable home in the Democratic Party.”

What are her thoughts on feminism?

“This whole feminist movement has nothing to do with women. Until Bill Clinton, if a 70-year-old boss called his 60-year-old secretary ‘honey,’ they’d be screaming about white male patriarchal oppression. But then they have an actual president molesting the help and credibly accused of raping women and suddenly we have a new definition of sexual harassment, to the point where Gloria Steinem wrote in The New York Timesbasically the ‘one free grope’ rule. You get one free grope and if the woman says no, then you’re not supposed to keep dropping your pants and saying ‘kiss it.’ But you’re allowed to drop your pants one time. … And with me they’ve dropped their principles on everything. They’re debating whether it’s okay for a liberal male to fantasize about raping me—that’s the state feminism has come to.”

Did she mean it recently when she said she wished there was a fatwa against her?

“Actually, I can’t get one. You can only get one if you’re a Muslim. And a Muslim friend of mine also pointed out to me, ‘They don’t particularly care in your case, because you’re just a girl—they just want to kill you.’”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University?

“Shocking. You know, I give a lot of college speeches, I know how colleges behave, and there is the least free speech on a college campus as any place in America. It is like Iran—so for them to be saying they are allowing this guy to speak because of free speech, you know, your head explodes. … Ahmadinejad held the Holocaust cartoon contest; he is funding Shia militants. And if you watched the speech, he was wildly applauded for every anti-American remark—the only one that upset them was when he didn’t endorse sodomy.”

Did Columbia inviting him give the Iranian president more legitimacy?

“Absolutely. My point is that Americans have to wake up and realize that there are people who are trying to help the enemy. It’s like Americans, or liberals, not believing that people like Ahmadinejad would be willing to commit suicide in order to destroy Israel and America. They say it, they do it, and yet Americans don’t believe it. Liberals root for the other side consistently, they aid the other side consistently. … These people root against America.”

Who would be a better president for New York City, Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton?

“Well, since I think the main thing New Yorkers ought to be looking for is someone who will not allow the Muslims to put a dirty bomb in New York, definitely Rudy.”

How would she sum up Hillary’s campaign strategy?

“Assume that the loony base secretly knows you are a Marxist, so that you can talk like a moderate Democrat, appeal to the DLC types, and people who are Democrats because their grandparents were Democrats.”

If Hillary’s elected, does she think she’ll—

“Impose communism in America? Yes. And I think it’s a little worse than that, because I think she has a chip on her shoulder and a ‘to do’ list. Ha-ha!

If the Clintons are back in the White House, won’t there at least be some good drama and a safe, familiar feeling?

“That’s like hoping for O.J. to kill again. I actually think they’re a bore. We know everything about them now. Look how many books have been written about Hillary. The Don Van Natta and Jeff Gerth book, they’re like the two best reporters in America or within the top five, and they turned up a few good stories, but don’t you feel like you know everything about it?

I wanted to go just to [the page about] Hillary listening to illegally wiretapped phone calls of Bill Clinton’s bimbos. That’s a pretty big story, and then I don’t feel like I really have to read anything else. So I think it will be a bore. I mean, he’s not going to be around. He’ll be ambassador to Club Med. He’ll be out of the picture.” 

Another great interview with Ann from George Gurley and the ultra-liberal New York Observer.

Go figure.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “The New York Observer’s Ann Coulter Interview”

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »