Posted on 07/05/2003 10:44:31 AM PDT by publius1
He looks the way I like the public to see all liberals.
Hmmm... where to begin... OK, anyone spying for Nazi Germany in 1942 would not, by definition, be a Right-winger - they would have been a National Socialist. So, we can scratch that off the list...
The Political Leadership of the Confederacy. Let's see... Southern Democrats... We can scratch that off the list, since we are going by labels and semantics, as is the author of this column...
Now, let's takle a look at the 'Tories'. Tories believed in King over Parliament - so they received the name Tories after the British COnservative Party of the day. So, that is the only thing that, in my opinion, makes them 'Right-Wingers'. So, they will be scratched off the list because I'm feeling Feisty....
Oh goody - let's examine Mr. McVeigh. He was a Social Darwinist. Darwin is a hero of the Left. Not a true right-winger. (I love semantics hee hee) So he is off the list, too...
And last, but not least: Robert Hanssen. He was spying for the USSR, so that makes him a supporter of Communism, AKA a Left-Winger, regardless of his declared political views. Off the list he goes...
Well, now where are the right-wing traitors? Hmmm????
See, Mr. Conason? Two can play your game.
Being to lazy to do the research myself I will not check to see who is actually right. However, judging from the past, my money is on Coulter. Whether you agree with her or not, anyone who can't enjoy reading Coulter for the humor alone is missing a lot.
Coulter discusses McCarthy's impressive high school record in considerable loving detail. But somehow she neglects to mention McCarthy's first moment in the national spotlight. That was his infamous 1949 campaign on behalf of Nazi S.S. officers who were convicted of war crimes for the massacre of American troops in the town of Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge. On their orders, 83 American prisoners of war had been murdered by Waffen S.S. machine-gunners. The S.S. officers were sentenced to death, but McCarthy insisted that the entire case was a frame-up, with confessions obtained by horrific torture. He intervened in Senate hearings on the case and lied repeatedly during his defense of the Nazi murderers. His most spectacular claim was that the American investigators had crushed the testicles of German prisoners as an interrogation technique. McCarthy was later shown to have served as the pawn of neo-Nazi and communist provocateurs who were using the Malmedy case to whip up anti-American sentiment in postwar Germany
Anyone care to counter this claim? I did a quick web search and found some sites applauding McCarthy for his defense of the ideals of American justice.
There are some laugh out loud funny passages in there, great read..
I am actually trying to read the screed. I just started Ann's book today.
40 pages in, she has already made the point that, in 1948, portraying the exposers of Treason as rubes was right up front, as the story was unfolding.
Sixty years later, Same s*it; different pile.
The saloners are stuck in a time warp.
Be on alert, this spew that Publius has shared will be all over the Sunday shows.
Da?
Rush and Fox News are part of the "ferocious right wing"?
Methinks Joe is confusing commonsense with extremism....
HAhahahaaa.... This mouse Conason has been the biggest supporter of a President who doesn't know what "is" is and he has the gall to write something like this? LOL, every time I see this guy on TV I can't help but picture this weasely little crybaby from third grade who was always getting chased around the playground at recess. The kid ran away like a bunny rabbit.
It really boils down to, who you gonna believe - - a scumbag like Conason or a brilliant, careful, patriotic essayist like Coulter? I know who I believe, and it ain't the girly boy.
Are you sure you can read?
His article is replete with specific examples which he says support his characterization of Coulter, such as
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.
and
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." 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."
I haven't read the book or done the research so I can't judge whether he or Coulter is right...but you're wrong.
Being on the same page is like being on the same intern. Very popular sport in liberal circles....
Reminds me of Bill Murray's line in "Stripes" w/Goldie Hawn.
"No. Never convicted."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.