In her latest book, Treason, Ann Coulter, turning conventional history
on its head, claims that Joe McCarthy was the victim of a witch-hunt.
Does she know what she's talking about?
on its head, claims that Joe McCarthy was the victim of a witch-hunt.
Does she know what she's talking about?
ANN COULTER, author of Treason (2003)
The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our
times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of
Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives
is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed
during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the
nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign
of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Liberals denounced McCarthy
because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like
animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the
Nazis. As Whittaker Chambers said: "Innocence seldom utters outraged
shrieks. Guilt does."
The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our
times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of
Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives
is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed
during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the
nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign
of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Liberals denounced McCarthy
because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like
animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the
Nazis. As Whittaker Chambers said: "Innocence seldom utters outraged
shrieks. Guilt does."
At the time, half the country realized liberals were lying. But after
a half century of liberal myth-making, even the disgorging of Soviet
and American archives half a century later could not overcome their
lies. In 1995, the U.S. government released its cache of Soviet cables
that had been decoded during the Cold War in a top-secret undertaking
known as the Venona Project. The cables proved the overwhelming truth
of McCarthy's charges. Naturally, therefore, the release of decrypted
Soviet cables was barely mentioned by the New York Times. It might
have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of
"McCarthyism." They were not so innocent after all, it turns out.
a half century of liberal myth-making, even the disgorging of Soviet
and American archives half a century later could not overcome their
lies. In 1995, the U.S. government released its cache of Soviet cables
that had been decoded during the Cold War in a top-secret undertaking
known as the Venona Project. The cables proved the overwhelming truth
of McCarthy's charges. Naturally, therefore, the release of decrypted
Soviet cables was barely mentioned by the New York Times. It might
have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of
"McCarthyism." They were not so innocent after all, it turns out.
Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing
imaginations. McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. He was tilting at
an authentic communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the
Democratic Party. The Democrats had unpardonably connived with the
greatest evil of the 20th century. This could not be nullified. But
liberals could at least hope to redeem the Democratic Party by
dedicating themselves to rewriting history and blackening reputations.
This is what liberals had done repeatedly throughout the Cold War. At
every strategic moment this century, liberals would wage a campaign of
horrendous lies and disinformation simply to dull the discovery the
American people had made. They had gotten good at it.
imaginations. McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. He was tilting at
an authentic communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the
Democratic Party. The Democrats had unpardonably connived with the
greatest evil of the 20th century. This could not be nullified. But
liberals could at least hope to redeem the Democratic Party by
dedicating themselves to rewriting history and blackening reputations.
This is what liberals had done repeatedly throughout the Cold War. At
every strategic moment this century, liberals would wage a campaign of
horrendous lies and disinformation simply to dull the discovery the
American people had made. They had gotten good at it.
There were, admittedly, a few rare and striking exceptions to the
left's overall obtuseness to communist totalitarianism. John F.
Kennedy's pronouncements on communism could have been spoken by Joe
McCarthy. For all his flaws, Truman unquestionably loved his country.
He was a completely different breed from today's Democrats. Through
the years, there were various epiphanic moments creating yet more
anti-communist Democrats. The Stalin-Hitler pact, Alger Hiss'
prothonotary warbler, information about the purges and Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" – all these had their effect.
left's overall obtuseness to communist totalitarianism. John F.
Kennedy's pronouncements on communism could have been spoken by Joe
McCarthy. For all his flaws, Truman unquestionably loved his country.
He was a completely different breed from today's Democrats. Through
the years, there were various epiphanic moments creating yet more
anti-communist Democrats. The Stalin-Hitler pact, Alger Hiss'
prothonotary warbler, information about the purges and Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" – all these had their effect.
But after World War II, the Democratic Party suffered a form of what
France had succumbed to after World War I. The entire party had lost
its nerve for sacrifice, heroism and bravery. Beginning in the '50s,
there was a real battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. By the
late '60s, the battle was over. The anti-communist Democrats had lost.
France had succumbed to after World War I. The entire party had lost
its nerve for sacrifice, heroism and bravery. Beginning in the '50s,
there was a real battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. By the
late '60s, the battle was over. The anti-communist Democrats had lost.
Source: "I Dare Call it Treason," Frontpagemag.com (June 26, 2003)
..............................
Some criticism of Coulter's remarkable article....
Some criticism of Coulter's remarkable article....
THOMAS REEVES (Author of a biography of McCarthy)
In case you missed it, Ann Coulter, in her new book Treason, is
calling McCarthyism a liberal myth and labelling Joe McCarthy a hero.
The Far Right has gone off the cliff, folks. Arthur Herman's book on
the Wisconsin Senator started this nonsense. My own biography, I
contend modestly, needs to be studied by conservative journalists,
along with the huge bibliography that documents McCarthyism fully.
In case you missed it, Ann Coulter, in her new book Treason, is
calling McCarthyism a liberal myth and labelling Joe McCarthy a hero.
The Far Right has gone off the cliff, folks. Arthur Herman's book on
the Wisconsin Senator started this nonsense. My own biography, I
contend modestly, needs to be studied by conservative journalists,
along with the huge bibliography that documents McCarthyism fully.
Yes, the Venona Papers are important, but they, like the HUAC hearings
on Hollywood, have nothing directly to do with McCarthy. Would that
history were required in today's colleges and universities.
on Hollywood, have nothing directly to do with McCarthy. Would that
history were required in today's colleges and universities.
Source: Comment posted on the list run by Richard Jensen,
conservativenet (July 1, 2003)
..............................
ANDREW SULLIVAN
In Coulter's world, there are two types of people: conservatives and
liberals. These aren't groups of people with competing ideas. They are
the repositories of good and evil. There are no distinctions among
conservatives or among liberals. To admit the complexity of political
discourse would immediately require Coulter to think, explain, argue.
But why bother when you can earn millions insulting?
conservativenet (July 1, 2003)
..............................
ANDREW SULLIVAN
In Coulter's world, there are two types of people: conservatives and
liberals. These aren't groups of people with competing ideas. They are
the repositories of good and evil. There are no distinctions among
conservatives or among liberals. To admit the complexity of political
discourse would immediately require Coulter to think, explain, argue.
But why bother when you can earn millions insulting?
Here are a few comments about "liberals" that Coulter has deployed
over the years: "Liberals are fanatical liars." Liberals are "devoted
to class warfare, ethnic hatred and intolerance." Liberals "hate
democracy because democracy requires persuasion and compromise rather
than brute political force." Some of this is obvious hyperbole,
designed for a partisan audience. Some of it could be explained as
good, dirty fun. It was this formula that gained her enormous sales
for her last book, "Slander," which detailed in sometimes hilarious
prose, the liberal bias in much of American media. But her latest tome
ups the ante even further. If biased liberal editors are busy
slandering conservatives, liberals more generally are dedicated to the
subversion of their own country. They are guilty of - yes - treason.
over the years: "Liberals are fanatical liars." Liberals are "devoted
to class warfare, ethnic hatred and intolerance." Liberals "hate
democracy because democracy requires persuasion and compromise rather
than brute political force." Some of this is obvious hyperbole,
designed for a partisan audience. Some of it could be explained as
good, dirty fun. It was this formula that gained her enormous sales
for her last book, "Slander," which detailed in sometimes hilarious
prose, the liberal bias in much of American media. But her latest tome
ups the ante even further. If biased liberal editors are busy
slandering conservatives, liberals more generally are dedicated to the
subversion of their own country. They are guilty of - yes - treason.
A few nuggets: "As a rule of thumb, Democrats opposed anything opposed
by their cherished Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not like the
idea of a militarily strong America. Neither did the Democrats!"
Earlier in the same vein: "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union
or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America.
They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's
self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant." And then: "The myth
of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times.
Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe
McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer
liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the
McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's
ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to
blacken McCarthy's name."
by their cherished Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not like the
idea of a militarily strong America. Neither did the Democrats!"
Earlier in the same vein: "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union
or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America.
They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's
self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant." And then: "The myth
of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times.
Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe
McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer
liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the
McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's
ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to
blacken McCarthy's name."
Coulter does not seek to complicate her view of liberals with any
serious or lengthy treatment of the many Democrats and liberals who
were ferociously anti-Communist. Scoop Jackson? Harry Truman? John F
Kennedy? Lyndon Vietnam Johnson? She doesn't substantively deal with
those Democrats today - from Senator Joe Lieberman to the New Republic
magazine - who were anti-Saddam before many Republicans were. She is
absolutely right to insist that many on the Left are in denial about
some Americans' complicity in Soviet evil, the guilt of true traitors
like Alger Hiss or the Rosenbergs, who helped Stalin and his heirs in
their murderous pursuits. And part of the frustration of reading
Coulter is that her basic causes are the right ones: the American
media truly is biased to the left; some liberals and Democrats were
bona fide traitors during the Cold War; many on the far left today are
essentially anti-American and hope for the defeat of their country in
foreign wars....
serious or lengthy treatment of the many Democrats and liberals who
were ferociously anti-Communist. Scoop Jackson? Harry Truman? John F
Kennedy? Lyndon Vietnam Johnson? She doesn't substantively deal with
those Democrats today - from Senator Joe Lieberman to the New Republic
magazine - who were anti-Saddam before many Republicans were. She is
absolutely right to insist that many on the Left are in denial about
some Americans' complicity in Soviet evil, the guilt of true traitors
like Alger Hiss or the Rosenbergs, who helped Stalin and his heirs in
their murderous pursuits. And part of the frustration of reading
Coulter is that her basic causes are the right ones: the American
media truly is biased to the left; some liberals and Democrats were
bona fide traitors during the Cold War; many on the far left today are
essentially anti-American and hope for the defeat of their country in
foreign wars....
One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in
great detail, RON RADOSH, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done
to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years.
"I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am
reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen
Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous
and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and
negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book
on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he
tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument."
Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of
McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws
the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I
think it is important that those who are considered critics of
left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when
self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap."
great detail, RON RADOSH, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done
to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years.
"I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am
reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen
Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous
and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and
negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book
on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he
tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument."
Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of
McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws
the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I
think it is important that those who are considered critics of
left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when
self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap."
Source: The London Sunday Times (July 5, 2003)
..............................
JOE CONASON
"Slander" is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as "a false
defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which
injures the character or reputation of the person defamed." The
venerable American legal lexicon goes on to note that such defamatory
words are sometimes "actionable in themselves, without proof of
special damages," particularly when they impute "guilt of some offence
for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the
criminal courts; as to call a person a 'traitor.'"
..............................
JOE CONASON
"Slander" is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as "a false
defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which
injures the character or reputation of the person defamed." The
venerable American legal lexicon goes on to note that such defamatory
words are sometimes "actionable in themselves, without proof of
special damages," particularly when they impute "guilt of some offence
for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the
criminal courts; as to call a person a 'traitor.'"
So how appropriate it is that in the rapidly growing Ann Coulter
bibliography, last year's bestselling "Slander" is now followed by
"Treason," her new catalog of defamation against every liberal and
every Democrat -- indeed, every American who has dared to disagree
with her or her spirit guide, Joe McCarthy -- as "traitors." And like
a criminal who subconsciously wants to be caught, Coulter seems
compelled to reveal at last her true role model. (Some of us had
figured this out already.)
bibliography, last year's bestselling "Slander" is now followed by
"Treason," her new catalog of defamation against every liberal and
every Democrat -- indeed, every American who has dared to disagree
with her or her spirit guide, Joe McCarthy -- as "traitors." And like
a criminal who subconsciously wants to be caught, Coulter seems
compelled to reveal at last her true role model. (Some of us had
figured this out already.)
She not only lionizes the late senator, whose name is synonymous with
demagogue, but with a vengeance also adopts his methods and pursues
his partisan purposes. She sneers, she smears, she indicts by
falsehood and distortion -- and she frankly expresses her desire to
destroy any political party or person that resists Republican
conservatism (as defined by her).
demagogue, but with a vengeance also adopts his methods and pursues
his partisan purposes. She sneers, she smears, she indicts by
falsehood and distortion -- and she frankly expresses her desire to
destroy any political party or person that resists Republican
conservatism (as defined by her).
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam
Hussein, liberals are always against America," according to her
demonology. "They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of
America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years
of treason hasn't slowed them down." And: "Liberals relentlessly
attack their country, but we can't call them traitors, which they
manifestly are, because that would be 'McCarthyism,' which never
existed." (Never existed? Her idol gave his 1952 book that very word
as its title.) ...
Hussein, liberals are always against America," according to her
demonology. "They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of
America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years
of treason hasn't slowed them down." And: "Liberals relentlessly
attack their country, but we can't call them traitors, which they
manifestly are, because that would be 'McCarthyism,' which never
existed." (Never existed? Her idol gave his 1952 book that very word
as its title.) ...
The likelihood is that Coulter's many avid fans are as conveniently
ignorant of the past as she seems to be. So the rubes who buy
"Treason" will believe her when she accuses George Catlett Marshall,
the great general who oversaw the reconstruction of Europe, of
nurturing a "strange attraction" to "sedition" and of scheming to
assist rather than hinder Soviet expansion.
ignorant of the past as she seems to be. So the rubes who buy
"Treason" will believe her when she accuses George Catlett Marshall,
the great general who oversaw the reconstruction of Europe, of
nurturing a "strange attraction" to "sedition" and of scheming to
assist rather than hinder Soviet expansion.
Her duped readers will believe that Marshall and President Harry S.
Truman opposed Stalin only because Republicans won the midterm
elections in 1946. They probably won't know that Truman confronted the
Soviets in the Mediterranean with a naval task force several months
before Election Day; or that the new Republican majority cut Truman's
requested military budget by $500 million as soon as they took over
Congress in January 1947, nearly crippling the American occupation of
Germany and Japan; or that Truman, Marshall and Dean Acheson had to
plead with the isolationist Republican leadership to oppose Russian
designs on Greece and Turkey.
Truman opposed Stalin only because Republicans won the midterm
elections in 1946. They probably won't know that Truman confronted the
Soviets in the Mediterranean with a naval task force several months
before Election Day; or that the new Republican majority cut Truman's
requested military budget by $500 million as soon as they took over
Congress in January 1947, nearly crippling the American occupation of
Germany and Japan; or that Truman, Marshall and Dean Acheson had to
plead with the isolationist Republican leadership to oppose Russian
designs on Greece and Turkey.
Her deceptive style is exemplified in an anecdote she lifts from an
actual historian and twists to smear Truman. She writes: "Most
breathtakingly, in March 1946, Truman ostentatiously rebuffed
Churchill after his famous Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri.
Immediately after Churchill's speech, Truman instructed his Secretary
of State Dean Acheson not to attend a reception for Churchill a week
later in New York."
actual historian and twists to smear Truman. She writes: "Most
breathtakingly, in March 1946, Truman ostentatiously rebuffed
Churchill after his famous Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri.
Immediately after Churchill's speech, Truman instructed his Secretary
of State Dean Acheson not to attend a reception for Churchill a week
later in New York."
In that passage -- footnoted to James Chace's magisterial 1998
biography of Acheson -- Coulter demonstrates that she is both an
intentional liar and an incompetent writer. The pages she cites from
Chace explain quite clearly that Acheson (who was not then Secretary
of State and would not be promoted to that office until 1949) was
urged to avoid the New York reception by Secretary of State James
Byrnes, not Truman. The British apparently didn't notice that
"ostentatious rebuff," since they immediately invited Acheson and his
wife to a cordial lunch with Churchill in Washington. And as for
Truman, Chace notes that it was he who had invited Churchill to
Missouri, his home state, to deliver the speech -- which the American
president read in advance, assuring the former prime minister that his
strong warning about communist intentions would "do nothing but good."
biography of Acheson -- Coulter demonstrates that she is both an
intentional liar and an incompetent writer. The pages she cites from
Chace explain quite clearly that Acheson (who was not then Secretary
of State and would not be promoted to that office until 1949) was
urged to avoid the New York reception by Secretary of State James
Byrnes, not Truman. The British apparently didn't notice that
"ostentatious rebuff," since they immediately invited Acheson and his
wife to a cordial lunch with Churchill in Washington. And as for
Truman, Chace notes that it was he who had invited Churchill to
Missouri, his home state, to deliver the speech -- which the American
president read in advance, assuring the former prime minister that his
strong warning about communist intentions would "do nothing but good."
So replete is "Treason" with falsehoods and distortions, as well as so
much plain bullshit, that it may well create a cottage industry of
corrective fact-checking, just as "Slander" did last year. (The fun
has already begun with Brendan Nyhan's devastating review on the
Spinsanity Web site. So far the Spinsanity sages have found "at least
five factual claims that are indisputably false" in "Treason," along
with the usual Coulter techniques of phony quotation, misleading
sourcing, and sentences ripped from context or falsely attributed.)
much plain bullshit, that it may well create a cottage industry of
corrective fact-checking, just as "Slander" did last year. (The fun
has already begun with Brendan Nyhan's devastating review on the
Spinsanity Web site. So far the Spinsanity sages have found "at least
five factual claims that are indisputably false" in "Treason," along
with the usual Coulter techniques of phony quotation, misleading
sourcing, and sentences ripped from context or falsely attributed.)
Such heavy-handed deception was precisely the sort of tactic employed
by McCarthy himself against Acheson and all his other targets. In his
book "McCarthyism: The Fight for America," for instance, he charged
that the Truman aide had "hailed the Communist victory in China as 'a
new day which has dawned in Asia.'" Of course, Acheson had neither
said nor written anything of the kind.
by McCarthy himself against Acheson and all his other targets. In his
book "McCarthyism: The Fight for America," for instance, he charged
that the Truman aide had "hailed the Communist victory in China as 'a
new day which has dawned in Asia.'" Of course, Acheson had neither
said nor written anything of the kind.
To Coulter, McCarthy is simply a great man worthy of her emulation. In
her alternate universe, he isn't the slimy traducer Americans have
come to know and despise. He's bright, witty, warm-hearted and macho,
a sincere farm boy who exposes the treasonous cowardice of the urbane
Acheson, Marshall and other "sniffing pantywaists." She seems to
regard him as kind of a Jimmy Stewart type, albeit with jowls and five
o'clock shadow and a serious drinking problem.
her alternate universe, he isn't the slimy traducer Americans have
come to know and despise. He's bright, witty, warm-hearted and macho,
a sincere farm boy who exposes the treasonous cowardice of the urbane
Acheson, Marshall and other "sniffing pantywaists." She seems to
regard him as kind of a Jimmy Stewart type, albeit with jowls and five
o'clock shadow and a serious drinking problem.
And he never, ever attacked anyone who didn't deserve it.
"His targets were Soviet sympathizers and Soviet spies," Coulter
proclaims without qualification. But elsewhere she says that he wasn't
even really trying to find either communists or spies, but only
seeking to expose "security risks" in government jobs. Whatever his
mission, it was noble and succeeding admirably until 1954, when
"liberals immobilized him with their Army-McCarthy hearings and
censure investigation."
proclaims without qualification. But elsewhere she says that he wasn't
even really trying to find either communists or spies, but only
seeking to expose "security risks" in government jobs. Whatever his
mission, it was noble and succeeding admirably until 1954, when
"liberals immobilized him with their Army-McCarthy hearings and
censure investigation."
Actually, McCarthy was brought down by his own televised misconduct
during those hearings -- and by the outrage not of Democrats but of
Republicans, including President Eisenhower and a caucus of courageous
GOP senators. (Among the latter was the current president's
grandfather, Prescott Bush of Connecticut, whose vote to censure
McCarthy is another little fact that Coulter forgets to mention.)
during those hearings -- and by the outrage not of Democrats but of
Republicans, including President Eisenhower and a caucus of courageous
GOP senators. (Among the latter was the current president's
grandfather, Prescott Bush of Connecticut, whose vote to censure
McCarthy is another little fact that Coulter forgets to mention.)
The truth is that some of McCarthy's targets were or had been
communists -- and therefore by definition "sympathizers" of the Soviet
Union -- but he never uncovered a single indictable spy. There had
been dozens of Soviet agents in government before and during World War
II. But those espionage rings had been broken up by the FBI well
before McCarthy showed up brandishing a bogus "list" of 57 or 205 or
81 Communists in the State Department.
communists -- and therefore by definition "sympathizers" of the Soviet
Union -- but he never uncovered a single indictable spy. There had
been dozens of Soviet agents in government before and during World War
II. But those espionage rings had been broken up by the FBI well
before McCarthy showed up brandishing a bogus "list" of 57 or 205 or
81 Communists in the State Department.
Yet the Wisconsin windbag amassed sufficient power for a time to
destroy innocent individuals, most notably Owen Lattimore, described
smirkingly by Coulter as McCarthy's "biggest star" and the man he once
named as Stalin's "top espionage agent" in the United States.
"Somewhat surprisingly," as Coulter is obliged to note, Lattimore's
name has yet to be found in Moscow's excavated KGB archives or in the
Venona cables decrypted by U.S. Army counterespionage agents. The
dearth of evidence against Lattimore matters not at all to Coulter,
however. Though the eminent China expert was neither a spy nor a
communist, he certainly knew and worked with some communists -- and
worst of all, he disagreed with the far right about U.S. policy toward
China.
destroy innocent individuals, most notably Owen Lattimore, described
smirkingly by Coulter as McCarthy's "biggest star" and the man he once
named as Stalin's "top espionage agent" in the United States.
"Somewhat surprisingly," as Coulter is obliged to note, Lattimore's
name has yet to be found in Moscow's excavated KGB archives or in the
Venona cables decrypted by U.S. Army counterespionage agents. The
dearth of evidence against Lattimore matters not at all to Coulter,
however. Though the eminent China expert was neither a spy nor a
communist, he certainly knew and worked with some communists -- and
worst of all, he disagreed with the far right about U.S. policy toward
China.
Source: Salon (July 4, 2003)
..............................
http://hnn.us/articles/
This article brought to you by MORRISSEY BREEN, for Daisycutter Sports
..............................
http://hnn.us/articles/
This article brought to you by MORRISSEY BREEN, for Daisycutter Sports
Click here to Reply
 |
She's really got you in a flap, hasn't she!
|
"John Sefton" <js...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message news:<bu4ab6$u2a$1...@lust.ihug.
> She's really got you in a flap, hasn't she!
> She's really got you in a flap, hasn't she!
Look, of course there are ignorant, bigoted fools like Ann Coulter
shooting their stooo-pid mouths off all the time. I don't mind her
saying and writing her offensive and clumsily expressed nonsense, but
I do get very upset when I see her being championed as some
representative of "freedom" when, in fact, she is the very opposite.
shooting their stooo-pid mouths off all the time. I don't mind her
saying and writing her offensive and clumsily expressed nonsense, but
I do get very upset when I see her being championed as some
representative of "freedom" when, in fact, she is the very opposite.
Coulter almost always gives fawning and uncritical assent to anything
the rogue Bush administration does, she is a callous and gross racist,
she completely lacks a sense of humour, and she has a shrill and
intolerant personal style. She is defiant in her illiberal,
intolerant, inflammatory views, even - in seeming high seriousness -
going as far as trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the disgraced
demagogue Joseph McCarthy.
the rogue Bush administration does, she is a callous and gross racist,
she completely lacks a sense of humour, and she has a shrill and
intolerant personal style. She is defiant in her illiberal,
intolerant, inflammatory views, even - in seeming high seriousness -
going as far as trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the disgraced
demagogue Joseph McCarthy.
Yet she is always on the television, while a respected and
knowledgeable dissenter like Noam Chomsky is shunned. I'm not the
only one "in a flap" about the ludicrousness of that.
knowledgeable dissenter like Noam Chomsky is shunned. I'm not the
only one "in a flap" about the ludicrousness of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment