“Here come the FReepers who will complain that Coulter has “gone too far” in attacking Dean Acheson.”
Actually, she went too far when she mentioned the engine that can run on dirt....just when we had everyone convinced it ran on water.
Boop, Ann Coulter's conclusion about Dean Acheson's record may be correct, but her ad hominem attacks on Ronald Radosh ("whiner") and perhaps even on Acheson still weaken her article by implying that anyone who differs with her in her assessment of McCarthy must be doing so out of ignorance, wickedness or foolishness. I learned quite a bit from reading
Treason and consider it to be (by far) her best book, and Coulter is certainly doing no more than giving as good as she's gotten from Radosh, whose criticisms of
Treason have been at least as crude. Yet, while she is more than capable of supporting her declarations regarding both he and Secretary Acheson with fact and argument, she chooses not to bother, leaving her article at a lower level of quality than it easily could have been. I'm glad she's informed me and the rest of the public about the M. Stanton Evans book, but for similar reasons as those above, I suspect his book will be, while far less pithy than
Treason, far better.
Is David Horowitz correct in this
assessment? Maybe, maybe not. But he at least attacks the argument rather than the person and doesn't simply assume malicious motives in those who disagree with him.