[Anyone] A Letter To Ann Coulter.......

[Mike in Taos]

Drinking the water in D.C. is turning lawmakers gay.

McLEAN, Va. (AP) - Some species of male fish in the Potomac River and its 
tributaries are developing female sexual traits at a frequency higher than 
scientists have seen before, raising concerns about pollutants in a waterway 
that provides drinking water for millions of people.

>From: Thos Myers <totem at laplaza.org>
>Reply-To: anyone at laplaza.org
>To: anyone at laplaza.org
>Subject: [Anyone] A Letter To Ann Coulter.......
>Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:31:01 +0000 (GMT)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from halo.zianet.com ([216.234.192.180]) by 
>bay0-mc8-f11.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Thu, 7 
>Sep 2006 05:45:02 -0700
>Received: (qmail 85833 invoked by uid 0); 7 Sep 2006 12:45:02 -0000
>Received: from mail.zianet.com (HELO halo.zianet.com) (216.234.192.175)  by 
>zianet.com with SMTP; 7 Sep 2006 12:45:02 -0000
>Received: (qmail 79725 invoked by uid 0); 7 Sep 2006 12:31:02 -0000
>Received: from nacho.zianet.com (216.234.192.105)  by zianet.com with SMTP; 
>7 Sep 2006 12:31:02 -0000
>Received: none (zianet.com: domain at laplaza.org does not designate 
>permitted sender hosts)
>Received: (qmail 1806 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2006 12:31:02 -0000
>Received: (qmail 1803 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2006 12:31:02 -0000
>Received: from expendable.zianet.com (HELO ?216.234.192.138?) 
>(216.234.192.138)  by 0 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2006 12:31:02 -0000
>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3Ve4wlk1cKKpkNTktT9Op37VHaamV8bKQ=
>Return-Path: <totem at laplaza.org>
>Delivered-To: mailman-anyone at lists.laplaza.org
>Delivered-To: laplaza.org-anyone at laplaza.org
>Errors-To: anyone-admin at laplaza.org
>X-BeenThere: anyone at laplaza.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:anyone-request at laplaza.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:anyone at laplaza.org>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.laplaza.org/mailman/listinfo/anyone>,<mailto:anyone-request at laplaza.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Open Forum for Taos residents <anyone.laplaza.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.laplaza.org/mailman/listinfo/anyone>,<mailto:anyone-request at laplaza.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.laplaza.org/pipermail/anyone/>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2006 12:45:02.0510 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[6FCC2CE0:01C6D27B]
>
>
>
>Dear Ann,
>   But for the murder of our husbands on 9/11, we would not have gone to 
>Washington to fight for an independent 9/11 investigation. Our involvement 
>in national security would have begun and ended at the voting booth, like 
>most citizens. But for the initial failure of our leaders and elected 
>officials to create an independent 9/11 Commission to investigate the 
>terrorist attacks, we would not have not been forced to publicly fight for 
>it.
>
>   An important part of that fight required us to demand the attention of 
>our elected officials by speaking out in the media. Sadly, in many cases, 
>such public pressure (and its possible effect on Election Day) is needed to 
>inspire elected officials to do the right thing. That is not my opinion. 
>That's reality. Had President Bush and Congress impaneled an independent 
>commission on their own, we would not have needed to lobby Washington. 
>Likewise, had Congress thoroughly investigated the attacks and not limited 
>its investigation into intelligence-only areas, we would not have needed to 
>fight for the 9/11 Commission.
>
>   We wanted the 9/11 attacks investigated thoroughly and competently so 
>that fewer terrorist attacks would succeed in the future and more lives 
>would be saved on the day of the next attack. When you study the events of 
>9/11, you learn that many more lives should have been saved, and many 
>damages and injuries could have been mitigated. We wanted to hold the 
>government accountable so that, going forward, our nation would be better 
>prepared for future attacks and disasters.
>   Fighting for national security--securing the homeland or wanting to make 
>the nation safe--ought to be an unassailable objective, similar to the 
>Amber Alert, Megan's Law, and providing body armor for the troops. 
>Regardless of who the messenger raising these issues might be, the goals 
>are inarguable because they are pure, true, and right. Will these issues 
>receive more focused attention if the message is delivered by people who 
>speak passionately because they have been personally affected? Yes, 
>absolutely. But it's the issue that is unassailable--not the people 
>espousing that issue. If your conservative Republican friends are on the 
>wrong side of the issues, that's their problem.
>   Ann, the Jersey Girls are moms. We have children. Perhaps one day if you 
>have a child, you may understand the sense of duty and obligation that 
>parents feel toward their children to provide them with a safe and secure 
>environment, both in the present and the future. There were many, many 
>times when we wanted to give up. We were tired and frustrated. But we 
>didn't. The reason? Our children. We were left as their sole protectors; we 
>wanted them to know that even though their fathers were brutally killed, 
>they could be and would be safer living in America.
>   You complained to many interviewers that they hadn't taken the time to 
>read your book. But did you take the time to look at the Family Steering 
>Committee Web site (www.911independentcommission.org)? You might discover 
>that we shared some of the same disappointments, concerns, and grievances 
>that you have expressed with regard to the 9/11 Commission. The difference 
>is that we made those concerns known while the Commission was doing its 
>work--that is, when it could have made a difference. Why didn't you?
>   We could have used some more support back then, when we were fighting 
>against individual commissioners' apparent and very possible conflicts of 
>interest and the need for more hard-hitting hearings. We needed more help 
>in fighting for an extended deadline, so as to remove the Commission's 
>final report from the politics of the 2004 election, and a budgetary 
>increase so the Commission could complete its unfinished work on questions 
>about Able Danger. (You see, I did read your book.)
>   But frankly, I wonder how much you really know about the 9/11 
>Commission. You don't seem to understand that President Bush picked Tom 
>Kean to be the chairman--not the "co-chairman." You don't seem to be aware 
>that Philip Zelikow was the Commission's staff director or of why that 
>position was so important. You also seem ignorant of the fact that Zelikow 
>had served previously on the Bush National Security Council transition team 
>and on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. (Do you even 
>know who the current members of PFIAB are or what PFIAB does? Probably 
>not.) I wonder whether you even know that Zelikow is currently serving as 
>Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Special Counsel. Finally, and most 
>important, are you aware that the White House exercised the "final edits" 
>on the Commission's report? Tell me, Ann, how does that add up to a 
>Democratic whitewash?
>Because I was one of twelve family members who lobbied fiercely for an 
>independent commission, I was invited to meetings in the White House and on 
>Capitol Hill. I testified before Congress, as well. I wish you knew about 
>the battle that occurred behind the scenes because then you might not make 
>silly statements such as "nobody could ever debate the Jersey Girls." 
>Ironically, it is because we kept most of those meetings confidential that 
>you probably don't know how nastily certain elected officials behaved 
>behind closed doors. Trust me, we were countered, rebutted, and challenged 
>in almost every meeting we attended. Did we go on the record about those 
>incidents? No. We could have, and I can assure you that some of your 
>conservative Republican friends would not have come off well.
>   When I kept my mouth shut about the way a certain Republican official 
>spoke to me merely because it would have made people in your party look 
>bad, was I being "political"? I'm sure there are some Democrats who would 
>say yes. Did that mean I was being manipulated by your right-wing friends? 
>No. It meant that I had a job to do and I found no reason to distract 
>attention from our cause by dragging people through the mud. There was 
>plenty that I could have spouted off about then, and there still is to this 
>very day. But I don't--mostly because my mother and father taught me to 
>rise above bullies rather than stoop to their level.
>   You branded the Jersey Girls media whores, a bunch of celebrity-seeking 
>widows who enjoyed their husbands' deaths. Had your friends--including many 
>elected officials in the Republican Party and conservatives in 
>Washington--not put up a fight, and a very nasty fight, we wouldn't have 
>needed to raise public awareness through the media. So if you want to blame 
>anyone for our appearances on television, you should blame your own 
>coterie, not us. We simply wanted to inform the nation about what needed to 
>be done. And we still intend to do that.
>   Earlier this year, some of us were invited to appear on television to 
>discuss the verdict in the Zacarias Moussaoui case. We agreed to do that 
>because the U.S. has in custody three individuals with a more direct 
>connection to the 9/11 attacks than Moussaoui. To us, it is important to 
>show the world that we are a nation of laws and that the U.S. can 
>successfully bring terrorists to justice. Does that matter to you, Ann? If 
>so, then you ought to support us in our goal of bringing Khalid Sheikh 
>Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, and Khallad bin Attash to trial. Our judicial 
>process should hold these madmen accountable for the deaths of nearly 3,000 
>innocent people on 9/11.
>   I am truly puzzled by your accusation that we were operatives of or used 
>by the Democrats. We were never paid for television appearances, we did not 
>drive around in limos, we did not have publicists or PR people, and we 
>wrote all of our own press releases, talking points, letters to the editor, 
>statements, and testimony. (I don't know if the 9/11 family members who 
>chose to support the Republican Party can say the same.) At any rate, your 
>statements are false and defamatory, although that is nothing new for you.
>   As a public figure I'm in a poor position to hold you legally 
>accountable for your lies. But I will take the time to set the record 
>straight here. The Democrats were nearly the only people in Washington 
>willing to help us. That is not my opinion; it is a fact, notwithstanding a 
>few honorable exceptions, such as Chris Smith and John McCain. We worked 
>with anyone of either party who supported an independent investigation.
>   For some unknown reason--and as a seasoned right-wing operative maybe 
>you can enlighten us--most Republicans we encountered were completely 
>opposed to learning any lessons from 9/11. It's a shame, too. After all, 
>the Republican Party has been in total control of Washington for the past 
>three years. Had they made true national security a higher priority, 
>perhaps our cities would be better protected against terrorist attacks and 
>disasters. Again, the sorry conditions in our cities and across our nation 
>are a matter of fact, not opinion. Please don't blame me for that failure. 
>Assign the responsibility where it belongs.
>   Similarly, one of the reasons we are still fighting for national 
>security reforms (and encountered so much resistance in fighting for an 
>independent commission) is that very few people actually read commission 
>reports. They often sit on bookshelves gathering dust. Have you read the 
>9/11 Commission Report, along with its accompanying footnotes? Have you 
>read the Robb-Silverman report on the Iraq intelligence failures? What 
>about the Joint Inquiry of Congress report on 9/11? How about the 
>Hart-Rudman report? Or even the Bremer report? Probably not. If you 
>haven't, you should, because I think you would find those volumes 
>illuminating.
>   You have expressed outrage that few of your critics actually read your 
>books. You complain that they merely cherry-pick your most inflammatory 
>comments while missing your overall message. Frustrating, isn't it?
>You also wrongly accused us of being in the pocket of former president 
>Clinton. The obvious reason for why we always directed our questions and 
>requests to President Bush was simply because Clinton was no longer in 
>office. The former president had no power to commence an investigation into 
>the 9/11 attacks, nor did he have any power to effect change to make the 
>nation safer after 9/11. That power lay in the hands of President Bush--you 
>know, the guy who in your opinion has supreme authority.
>   Ann, I don't want to get into a debate with you. It's not because I am 
>afraid of you or your nasty bullying tactics. I'm not going to debate you 
>because we have many, many more important issues to deal with in our 
>country right now.
>But I will leave you with this: We live in America, the world's oldest 
>democracy. Democracy can prevail (is that what you and your friends really 
>fear?), but that requires hard work, as President Bush might say. Every 
>citizen in this country is entitled to his or her beliefs, and every 
>citizen is entitled to participate. We still have the right to speak our 
>minds to effect change (within the parameters of the law, of course). So 
>don't try to silence the voices of victims or anyone else, merely because 
>you disagree with them or feel threatened by their political choices. In my 
>opinion, your method of using intimidation and insults to "win" a debate is 
>truly unpatriotic.
>   Actually, I expect that you will continue to scream and shout and smear 
>as nastily as you want, so long as you think that that kind of behavior 
>sells books. But we have tackled bigger bullies than you and lived through 
>far worse circumstances than your book tour. We're not intimidated by you. 
>We're not running away.
>   And under no circumstances will we be silenced by your "godless" 
>rantings and ravings.
>   Kristen Breitweiser
>New York City
>June 2006
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Anyone mailing list
>Anyone at laplaza.org
>http://lists.laplaza.org/mailman/listinfo/anyone