On Scarborough Country, Schlussel misrepresented Hillary Clinton, defended
Coulter

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606160004

On the June 14 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, right-wing radio host
Debbie Schlussel misrepresented Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) record,
claiming that "there wasn't a peep" from Clinton when Suha Arafat, wife of
former Palestinian National Authority president Yasir Arafat, stated that
Israelis "poison Palestinian water and air and cause cancer for them."
Schlussel also joined other conservatives and media figures in defending
right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's recent attacks against widows of victims of
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

During a discussion with host Joe Scarborough about Clinton's condemnation
of Coulter's attacks on 9-11 widows, Schlussel misrepresented Clinton's
record when she proclaimed she was "really amazed" Clinton criticized
Coulter for her comments because "there wasn't a peep" from Clinton "when
Suha Arafat told [Clinton] that Jews like me poison Palestinian water and
air and cause cancer for them." Contrary to Schlussel's claim that Clinton
did not make "a peep" about Suha Arafat's controversial remarks made during
a trip Clinton took to the West Bank in 1999, an October 6, 2000, New York
Times article reported that Clinton disavowed Arafat's remarks after
receiving an official translation "hours later."

From the Times article:

On the trip, Mrs. Clinton was photographed kissing the wife of Yasir
Arafat, after Mrs. Arafat, speaking in Arabic, accused the Israeli
government of employing toxic gas against Palestinian women and children.
Mrs. Clinton condemned Mrs. Arafat hours later, after receiving, she said,
an official translation of her remarks.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by a Jewish Week questioner whether she would
have done anything differently with the benefit of hindsight, she responded
briskly. "I wouldn't have gone -- that's the first thing," she said. Mrs.
Clinton said the encounter, which some of her advisers view as the low point
of her campaign, led to "a misimpression about my strong feelings and
support of Israel."

Regarding Coulter's attack on 9-11 widows, Schlussel declared that Coulter
is "100 percent correct" and said while Coulter's "language was incorrect,"
and "provocative," Coulter "made a great point" saying "liberals" give
"Cindy Sheehan and these four women liberal infallibility because they lost
somebody." In characterizing Coulter's personal attacks on the 9-11 widows
as "provocative" and agreeing that Coulter's "point is 100 percent correct,"
Schlussel echoed other conservative media figures -- as well as reporters
such as Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz and ABC News senior
national correspondent Jake Tapper -- who have suggested that the underlying
argument Coulter was making in going after the widows -- that Democrats and
liberals use victims as advocates for particular causes because they are
insulated from criticism -- was "correct." In fact, far from being immune
from challenge, the individuals Coulter cited as examples of "infallible"
advocates promoted by Democrats have faced strong Republican opposition and,
quite often, ad hominem attacks from conservatives, as Media Matters for
America has documented. Moreover, as Media Matters has also documented,
contrary to Coulter's claim, echoed by others, that the GOP and
conservatives have demonstrated a great willingness to use victims and their
families to advocate their candidates and causes.

From the June 14 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

SCARBOROUGH: Now let's bring in radio talk show host Debbie Schlussel.
Debbie, you actually support what Ann Coulter said. How do you defend that?

SCHLUSSEL: Well, Joe, I don't support saying that widows enjoyed their
husbands' deaths or that they're harpies. I think her language was
incorrect. But her point is 100 percent correct. And I think we all know
that Ann uses this kind of polemical kind of language in order to get her
point across. I think if she would have just said what she meant without
using those words, that her point would not have gotten attention.

And I'm really amazed, Joe, that Hillary Clinton is very upset at what Ann
Coulter said, but there wasn't a peep from Hillary Clinton when Suha Arafat
told her that Jews like me poison Palestinian water and air and cause cancer
for them. She didn't seem to care about that. And I'm just amazed at the
uproar over what Ann says. People in this country are not half as upset, the
ones that are against Ann, as they are about people who genuinely hate us.
And I think people need to make the distinction between a political
polemicist and people who say things that really are genuinely dangerous for
our country.

SCARBOROUGH: But Debbie, the thing is, Ann's not just trying to make
points here, she's trying to sell books. And this is a very successful
device for her, isn't it. I mean, she's number one in The New York Times
[bestseller list]. She's number one on Amazon. I mean, it's -- her -- this
book is one of the biggest political books over the past year,
year-and-a-half, and it's because she knows she's just throwing kerosene on
the fire, right?

SCHLUSSEL: Well, but her last two books, for example, Treason [Crown
Forum, 2004] did very well, and they also were at the top of Amazon and the
top of the New York Times bestseller list for a while, and she didn't say
those kind of things. So yes, she's a smart marketer, but I think she made a
great point. The fact is that liberals do give people like Cindy Sheehan and
these four women liberal infallibility because they lost somebody. And the
fact is that they are saying things that make them political figures, and I
think they should be questioned.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, do you agree, though -- you agree with me, you agree
with Michael Smerconish, you agree with others that her words used were
inappropriate? And do you believe she should apologize for saying it?

SCHLUSSEL: I don't agree with her choice of words. I don't think she
should apologize for the points that she made.

SCARBOROUGH: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. Somebody was talking in my
ear. Did you say she should apologize?

SCHLUSSEL: I don't believe she should have used that language, but I don't
think she should apologize for saying that these women should not use the
deaths of their husbands for political purposes. I think she's right in that
point.

SCARBOROUGH: What about saying that they may profit off the deaths, they
may appear in Playboy, that they seem to actually enjoy what happened
because of the deaths?

SCHLUSSEL: Yes, I -- like I said, I don't agree with that choice of words.
I don't --

SCARBOROUGH: Should she apologize for those statements?

SCHLUSSEL: Well, I don't think that people need to apologize when they are
political columnists and they write provocative things to bring a point
across. I've heard people say things that are far more offensive to get
their point across, and nobody cared -- for example, Ward Churchill. Where
is Hillary Clinton or [Rep] Anthony Weiner [D-NY] or any of these people
asking Ward Churchill to apologize to the 9-11 widows for calling their
relatives "little Eichmanns"? They're nowhere to be heard on that.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, Debbie, I think they're wrong for only attacking the
other side. And I think conservatives that don't hold their own people
accountable are also incorrect. Hey, Debbie, thank you for being with us.

SCHLUSSEL: Thank you.