About 1,000 people showed up Friday night to hear Ann Coulter speak. Her intent in coming was to discredit liberals. Her misinformation and lack of serious analysis backfired, however, exposing her dangerously black-and-white world view.

It’s good this massively popular (at least among partisan conservatives) woman isn’t running for president, because she seems to have even greater difficulty with the facts than the current administration. At one point, she tried to claim that every single airline attack has been done by Muslim extremists. Not true. In 1994, student pilot Frank Conder (a white male) stole a Cessna 150L and landed it on the White House lawn, where it then skidded and crashed into the White House. But perhaps we should give Coulter the benefit of the doubt, given that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice isn’t on the ball either. During her questioning with the Sept. 11 Commission, Commissioner Thomas Kean (a Republican) asked Rice if she had seen or heard, between taking office and Sept. 11, anything at all about “using planes as bombs.” She answered in the negative — in other words saying “no.” Even if Conder’s suicide flight wasn’t discussed in that time period, which it obviously should have been, there was a potential Osama bin Laden plot uncovered during the G8 Summit in the summer of 2001, using a hijacked airliner as a bomb. Italian airspace was closed, and its anti-aircraft weaponry readied. How could Rice not have known — she was there!

Coulter has surely read Rice’s testimony because of its important place in politics. In this case, Coulter’s blinding partisanship is probably to blame for repeating other people’s lies. Although Rice was crafty enough to give dishonest answers using manipulative, non-answer language, Coulter took Rice’s dishonesty as absolute fact. And, just for good measure, Coulter should read up on Charles Bishop, who also made a suicide attack using a stolen Cessna.

After falsely claiming that Muslim extremists are responsible for 100 percent of airline attacks, Coulter used a clever manipulation of language and emotion to segue into a rant about Arabs (and especially their relation to terrorism) in general. Like before, she failed to provide an honest, balanced view.

She failed to note that the most destructive weapon found since the Iraq invasion was not actually in Iraq, but in Texas. William J. Krar — a white supremacist — was caught in possession of a sodium cyanide bomb capable of killing thousands of people. Thousands. Whose side is Coulter on?

And let’s not forget Robert Goldstein, yet another white male terrorist. Goldstein, a podiatrist, had created a real horror show of terror about to be unleashed. His target? Why, the Floridian Muslim community, of course. Who is Coulter protecting?

But what about Theodore Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber? He was a white male terrorist, too. Coulter would have said the often repeated line “We don’t deal with terrorists!” Exactly that approach, however, is exactly what helped capture Kaczynski and end his reign of terror.

At the time, he was trying to get his manifesto published under the threat of violence. A reluctant Washington Post and New York Times ran the manifesto in their newspapers, and lo and behold, Kaczynski’s brother recognized the language and demeanor of the writing and called the cops. Here’s to recognizing that the world is a complex place and that rigid fundamentals don’t account for life’s complexities.

Coulter is just another Michael Moore. She’s a narrow-minded partisan hack who can’t be trusted. Thanks for coming, Ann. Don’t let the facts hit you on the way out.

Oops.