Wherein I Challenge Ann Coulter to Debate Me

Let’s Do It For the Troops!

Any and all funds raised by our debate will immediately be donated to DISABLED VETERANS! Whaddya say, Annie baby?

That’s right, Ms. Coulter. I hereby issue you a challenge: Meet me in St. Louis, or wherever you please � and let’s have ourselves an honest-to-goodness debate.

Now, I realise that the concepts of both �honesty� and �goodness� are foreign to you, but you can do the research, right? — you’re a big girl.

(Metaphorically and chronologically, of course — god forbid you take that phrase literally and make the panicky teenaged decision to eschew even the meagre sustenance you’ve allowed yourself thus far. By the by, Ann � may I call you Ann? � where on earth did you get the idea that heroin chic was still fashionable? My god, woman, that is SO 1993).

Where was I? Oh, yes � a debate. �Twixt you and me, Annie baby. We can find ourselves a suitably impartial moderator � say, anyone who hasn’t ever seen you or read you. I wouldn’t want the inevitable revulsion of any sentient being to your previous work to create a bias in my favour.

Now, you may be saying to yourself (no doubt with your trademark sneer pasted on your Botoxed visage � how DO you do that, by the way? Do you get the injections WHILE sneering, in order to preserve that look?), �Why the heck should I debate this nonentity? What do I have to gain?�

Weight, for one thing � but never mind that now.

If I were you, Annie darling, I’d be asking the same question. Let’s start with the purely superficial advantages to your accepting this challenge:

• I’m a good 40 pounds heavier than you � you get to look even THINNER!
  (Be still my heart! � I’d wish you the same, but I’m pretty sure yours has been still for at least a decade.)
• It’s one more chance for you to demonstrate your superior debating skills while looking as fabulous as you can. Perhaps it might even be televised, thus assuring you another chunk of film for your archives.
• If you DO manage to talk someone into televising it, you can get your roots touched up and call it tax deductible.
• Free publicity � now what media whore (and I use the term with every ounce of disrespect I can muster) could resist that?

I have absolutely no doubt you will reject this challenge, should it cross your unprincipled path. Cowardice and self-interest demand you never set foot near a podium facing anyone who has even the slightest chance of upstaging your shallow, venal vernacular. Your rabid right wing talking points wouldn’t do you a bit of good, Annie dearest, in the face of actual facts delivered by someone who actually outmatches you in obnoxiousness AND wit (granted, the latter is an unfair comparison, since you seem to have plagiarised most of what you try to pass off as wit, anyway).

And trust me � I have it on excellent authority that I not only outweigh you physically, but intellectually, as well. (That authority being, oh, everyone I’ve ever met.)

Nevertheless, I am compelled to issue this challenge to you, Annie, sweetheart; too often lately, I have accidentally been exposed to your risible claims as to the inferiority � nay, TREASON � of the average liberal, and it will not stand.

Accustomed as you are to the cushion of your Fox News berth; to the faux-gallantry of your fellow traveler in fascism, Sean Hannity; to the woefully inadequate foils offered in sacrifice to you like so much rotting meat to a vulture� it is high time someone who is your intellectual, moral and physical superior threw down the gauntlet and dared you to pick it up.

I dare you, Annie, dollface, sweetums, puddin’ � I double dog dare you. Debate me. All I need is a couple days’ notice to raise sufficient funds for travel and accommodations wherever you decide to meet me.

(Okay, it will take less than an hour to raise the funds — but I need the rest of the time to arrange babysitting and get MY roots touched up.)

Let’s see if my hunch about you is right; let’s see if you really are the craven coward your curriculum vitae evinces you to be…

Dear [___________],

Yesterday I mentioned how I consider any analysis that simply concludes that, It’s about power, or with, They simply want to get power, to be simplistic. Now, I don’t mean to belittle this approach; however, to simply say that it’s about power is to rely on a truism which, at face value, is difficult to refute. Moreover, not going beyond this level of analysis, It’s about power, leaves a lot unanswered and skirts the hard work of looking at the tangible issues that contribute to Islamic terrorism. Yes, it’s about power; but this is the most obvious and least complicated part of the equation. Again, there are tangible issues and policy concerns that can be pointed to which contribute to Islamic terrorism; thus, if the ultimate goal of an offensive war against Iraq was to “change the climate of the region,” and to diminish “the rise of Islamic terrorism,” it clearly would’ve been better to start by looking at those tangible issues and policies that contribute to terrorism in the region — rather than playing into their hands by initiating an offensive war. This is specially true if, as a lot of close observers (including war supporters, military personnel, intelligence analysts, historians and others) note that invading Iraq has contributed to the radicalization of a lot Muslims that would not have otherwise engaged in terrorists acts. Moreover, this same group of observers notes that invasion simply bolsters the Al Queda propaganda line that “infidels,” (namely the U.S.) are interested in “invading and occupying Muslim lands for its oil.” Finally, Bin Ladin out right ridicules the notion that the Bush administration is fighting for “freedom,” and Bin Ladin counters that he is the one fighting for “Islamic freedom and against the occupiers of Muslim land.” Now, ask yourself this question, in the region, who do you think is winning the propaganda war? Better yet, ask yourself, Who has more credibility in the Islamic world, Bush or Bin Ladin?

Lastly, note that Bin Ladin’s and Al Queda’s war is not against Westerners in general, but against very specific targets. For example, in a statement released by Al Queda ridiculing Bush’s rationale that Islamic terrorists hate our freedom, Bin Ladin noted that Al Queda does not hate our freedom and posed this question, Why is it that Sweden is not targeted and yet they enjoy as much freedom as Americans? His response, because Sweden does not occupy Muslim land nor support apostate regimes in the region. Clearly Al Queda is motivated by religious and ideological fervor. Yes, at surface level, it is about power; however, the fuel that drives Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists, and which fills their ranks with supporters, is composed of perceived grievances against U.S. policies in the region which some Muslims perceive as “unfair, oppressive, against their religion and against their national interests.” These grievances are difficult to address; however, they are rooted on tangible policies and causes that we, as a nation, can choose to address. Unfortunately, rather than looking at the situation in an analytical manner, a lot of our fellow citizens have given in to hyper-nationalism and, too, bought into the bumper sticker rationale for the war (i.e., freedom and all the other one line slogans).

[XX]

PS. You may be asking, What the fuck do you base this on? Well, on close obersvation of current events, but most recently, on these two books:

Imperial Hubris:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574888625/
qid=1123789202/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/
104-1294730-7043913?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Through Our Enemies Eyes:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/
1574885537/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/
104-1294730-7043913?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The author of both these books is a historian, specialist on the Middle East on Al Queda and Bin Ladin, and a 20 year veteran of the CIA.

I’ll also be reading this book, No God But God:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/
0812971892/ref=reg_hu-wl_item-added/
104-1294730-7043913?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance