43811618
Ann Coulter On The Chelsea Bomber, 2016: "Journalists Were Indignant That Trump Had Called A Bomb A “Bomb” Before THEY Said So"
Jf
October 16, 2017, 08:55 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
This is from Trump Busts Muslim Protection Racket, Ann Coulter's September 21, 2016 column on the Chelsea Bomber and the media.
Forty minutes after the explosion in Chelsea Saturday night, Donald Trump told a crowd in Colorado that a bomb had gone off in New York and said, “We better get very tough, folks. We better get very, very tough.”

For the next 48 hours, the media denounced Trump for jumping to conclusions about a “bomb”–and especially for the wild suggestion that government policy had had anything to do with it. (How about our policy of naturalizing 858 people from terrorist-producing countries who were under orders of deportation? [Watchdog: Feds wrongly granted citizenship to hundreds facing deportation, FoxNews, September 19, 2016] Is it deplorable to ask about that policy?)

That night, CNN boasted that it placed “numerous requests” to the Trump campaign, demanding his evidence that it was a bomb. This explosive-filled device with a detonator that blew up in a dumpster–what makes you think it was a bomb?

Hoping to get a snappy riposte from the pouty pantsuit on Trump’s wild leap from an explosion in a dumpster to a “bomb,” the press asked her to comment on Trump’s “conclusion”–as they termed his statement of the blindingly obvious.

Hillary referred to the bombing as a “bombing,” then snipped, “I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this … I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions.”

True, there was a bombing, but that doesn’t mean there was a bomb. Let’s not fly off the handle. It could have been an exploding Edible Arrangement.

blasEven after the dumbest mammal in North America, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, had admitted it was a bomb, journalists were indignant that Trump had called a bomb a “bomb” before they said so.

On CNN’s “Inside Politics” on Sunday, The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman [Email her] said that even Trump’s supporters worry that “he often gets ahead of information” and that Democrats would make it an issue of his not being “careful, that he doesn’t wait for facts. That he just goes off and talks.”

Hey, Maggie? I’m a Trump supporter and I know lots of Trump supporters. None of us ever worry about Trump “getting ahead of the facts.”

CNN’s Sara Murray [Tweet her] complained that Trump “seizes on these moments so instantly before we have the facts.”

Instead of instantly seizing on this moment to assume Trump was wrong, shouldn’t Sara have waited until all the facts were in?

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus [Email her] announced, “I’m a facts girl”–thanks for sharing your OKCupid profile with us, Ruth!–“so I think the response, ‘I’d like to wait for the facts until I comment,’ is always a good idea.”

The media was enraged that Trump was sensible enough to realize what had happened. HE COULD HAVE BEEN WRONG! Yeah, but he wasn’t. As Trump said, “I should be a newscaster because I called it before the news.” [More]