This could have been a trial run to see what happens when an anonymous report is made concerning a threat in Washington D.C. or elsewhere. Makes you wonder if contingencies are in place to keep forces in reserve, rather than diverting everyone onto a wild goose chase, leaving the real target vulnerable.

Even if not such a trial run, this incident would be quite instructive to many people, ranging from garden variety crooks to actual terrorists...

I'm nearly speechless. WHY does anyone listen to or give air time to this sorry excuse for a human being?

An old saying comes to mind: "She was weaned on a pickle." That's scarcely strong enough, though -- more likely she was weaned on BILE. (Visions now well up in the imagination -- Ann as a baby, biting her own mother's breast while nursing, or even Ann herself as a MOTHER, God help her unfortunate child -- the mind boggles.)

Now, another issue -- and I admit I didn't see the "Today" interview, so this MAY have been covered by Matt Lauer -- let's hope that NO ONE allows this sour little bitch to avoid answering the question about the felony she apparently committed when voting in Florida in November 2004.

A straight answer, Ann babe, a straight answer is all we need.

This passage, taken from the transcript of attorney Joseph Welch's historic encounter with Joe McCarthy during the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, is SO apt right now:

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

What this country needs is millions of people who are willing to say "Enough!" to idiots like Ann Coulter. In the case of Coulter, since it's quite clear she's NO LADY, I wouldn't even change Welch's "sir" to "madam" -- leave it as it is.

- - - - -

Moving right along, a question comes to mind after pondering Coulter's criticism of "millionaire broads" from 9/11 -- since personal loss is apparently no grounds for speaking out or having an informed opinion about any subject, is it equally wrong for courts to solicit victim impact statements during sentencing hearings of convicted criminals? Simple logical consistency leads to a conclusion Coulter would say "yes" -- so why hasn't this issue been raised before by her?

Where was she during the recent sniper shooting trials? Never heard a peep. How about during the Zacharias Moussaoui trial? Hmmm -- not a single word there either.

Oh, silly me -- "simple logical consistency?" We ARE talking about Ann Coulter, aren't we? Forget I brought it up.

“The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”

As infuriating and disgusting as Ms. Coulter is (and has been for years), we need to step back and realize one thing -- she is NOTHING if people don't react to her.

She's merely a sharp stick in nearly human form, with no purpose except poking people repeatedly to provoke a reaction. She may literally be an empath straight out of science fiction, in this case a being who feeds on the negative emotions of others. (Has anyone ever seen or photographed her EATING or DRINKING? Hmmm...)

IF ONLY we just ignored the hateful hag -- ignoring her as the bile continues flooding from her poisoned pen and lips would HAVE to be the worst punishment anyone could inflict on her.

There's no doubt at all to me that Wilde's famous quotation applies to Ms. Coulter better than almost any other public figure today.

This story crystallizes so well exactly what is wrong with our Decider in Chief, the current pretender occupying the Presidency. How can any man be so arrogant as to believe he can learn NOTHING from anyone else, or that he should (God forbid) EVER change course?

The classic Greek definition of a tragedy centers on the unavoidable downfall of the hero due to inherent character flaws. This country, and indeed the entire world, is now caught in the whirlpool of the myriad flaws of George W. Bush -- we're ALL trapped in his Greek tragedy, being sucked downward, ever downward.

Oh, wait, I forgot -- he'd probably call this a "Grecian" tragedy, wouldn't he?

Just TRY to imagine the utter despair felt by the first President Bush -- how bad would things have to be in his own estimation before intervening in this way? Whether or not he was a good President himself, he ought to get the highest marks for true patriotism to be willing to put his country's welfare ahead of his own son or his own feelings.

I've waited in vain for years to see someone -- ANYONE -- resign from high office over matters of conscience and principle, as they do in Great Britain. Wouldn't it be sweet to see the elder Bush go public over major differences with his son?

It's hard to imagine that this familiar old label won't eventually be pasted on Mr. Rove's forehead -- and possibly (probably?) on the foreheads of several other high administration officials. Until the whole can of worms is opened for public examination, no one can know for sure -- but it is a good assumption that the special prosecutor wasn't continually hauling Rove in to speak with the grand jury because he likes his face.

As those of us old enough to remember Watergate recall all too clearly, choosing NOT to indict someone is not necessarily a statement of innocence; it can also be a statement about how difficult or impossible it might be to prosecute someone successfully, or about how something is essentially a political issue (even, at the extreme, rising to the level of impeachment -- and therefore a matter for Congress, not the courts).