Has she no shame? [Conason on Coulter--Some Men Just Can't Handle Blondes]

Salon ^ | July 4, 2003 | Joe Conason

[CyberAnt]

Exactly! and the liberals never learn ... they continue their "politics of personal destruction" just as Ann said.

[VRWC_minion]

Judging by the flak, she is over the target.

[CyberAnt]

Well ... I'd rather be an Ann Coulter fan than an ignorant Hitlery sheeple!!

[liberallarry]

I hope this is helpful.

It is helpful.

The theme of Coulter's book is that for fifty years the left has in general acted and spoken publicly in such a way as to always give aid and comfort to the enemy.

I've already spoken to this.
Once again, I agree that the Left has too often taken reflexively anti-American positions focusing on our short-comings while excusing or ignoring those of our enemies. But that doesn't excuse Coulter's factual errors, omissions, and distortions (if Conason is correct), and it certainly doesn't excuse exagerations like her accusations against Marshall (if Conason is correct).
Keep in mind that any criticism of those in power can be construed as aid to those who aren't.

I don't know Conason so I can't address the issue of whether or not his opposition to Coulter's argument is based on her gender. But I doubt that you're in any better position. That Democrats (or liberals) treat their friends better than their enemies says nothing. Who doesn't behave that way?

As for my wit - or lack of - :)....if you can do better you'll have my sincere admiration regardless of what I think of your politics.

[cardinal4]

Blah, blah, blah. Conason hates everyone who isnt a communist..

[Wiser now]

Mr. Conason is very, very sorry he got caught.

[Darksheare]

I doubt anyone who shows more wit and tact than you will have your sincere admiration.
More likely, you'll be infantile and angry about it, and prove so by hurtling liberalistic catch phrases in an attempt to appear enlightened.

[MaxPlus305]

OK OK, enough about how we should think Coulter is correct because we like her. Now is anyone going to actually address the claims this writer brings up? Here are the main ones I see:

-She doesn't mention innocent people, like Theo Kaghan, who were wronged by McCarthy. She also attacks Owen Lattimore, although she admits it surprising that his name is not found in the KGB archives or Verona cables.

-Coulter fails to mention that McCarthy defended Nazi SS Officers who were convicted of slaughtering 88 American POWs.

-No mention of right wing traitors in "Treason". In fact, no mention of any right-wing persons, including commie-hating Pat Buchanan, who disagree with the current war.

I haven't read her book (I've read plenty of her columns, though)...but these seem to be pretty strong points against what she wrote.

[CyberAnt]

Since most of the article has already been debunked - I'd say this little paragraph is only there to try to prove a connection between McCarthy and the Nazis. We all know Hitler was a SOCIALIST! Therefore, Hitler could not have been a right-winger.

Soooo, like the rest of the article, it doesn't hold much weight with me, and I wouldn't even know where to look to research such information.

[TLBSHOW]

this is great stuff that Ann writes and if the libs get upset about the truth being slammed in their faces so much the better. Every story they write against her I am willing to bet sales of her books go up.

[CyberAnt]

"Sixty years later, Same s*it; different pile"

Exactly!!

I believe Ann says that in the first chapter - the liberals are still using their old playbook - and it isn't working anymore. It's even funnier that the liberals don't get the fact that it's not working anymore.

[CyberAnt]

"Methinks Joe is confusing commonsense with extremism"

I think you're right ... since Joe is extreme and has no commonsense.

[patton]

1) Rule 1; Patton is right.

2) Rule 2; See Rule 1.

[RaceBannon]

I can handle blondes, Ann is just too smart for me!

[capt. norm]

"always criticising us, never seeing the faults of our enemies. But she's wrong to label that treason "

They are aiding and abbetting our enemies. Saddam got a lot of mileage out of the demonstrations by the anti-war libs and used the videos of same to ensure to his allies that the US public would not allow us to go to war.

They could easily be tied to loss of American troops by encouraging Saddam's troops to be more agressive.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Man, I'm loving life these days! The liberal, left-wing Democrats are going bananas over Ann Coulter's book "Treason". I call it "The Eye Bulging Syndrome". Joe Conason belongs to that sect big time, but the leaders are Hillary Clinton and Phil Donahue. I guess Simon & Shuster must be a bit concerned about the sales of Hillary Clinton's book, Living History", so much so that they have dropped the price after only three weeks since the book went on the market. You can now get "Living History" for 40% off at Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble. I was in Barnes & Noble (Frisco, TX) this morning looking for another book, when I noticed the big display of Ann Coulter books. I ran into a gent from Wisconsin who was reading the back sheet of the cover. He asked me if I had read the book and was it good. I said yes to both questions. He said he had to buy it! I said, why? He said because his daughter had read it and said it was a great read! That's when he told me he was from Wisconsin and always thought that Joe McCarthy had gotten a bad rap. He took the book off the self and headed to the register. We exchanged pleasent goodbys and I was on my own way. Great morning in America!

[MaxPlus305]

We all know Hitler was a SOCIALIST! Therefore, Hitler could not have been a right-winger.

Uhhh...and that little tidbit would fit exactly with this author's claim that Coulter whitewashed McCarthy's shady dealings...especially, as this critic claims, since the defense of the SS officers was aided by a communist agent. It wouldn't fit her thesis if McCarthy was defending socialists, now would it?

Of course, it's not fair that Coulter should write down McCarthy's whole political history. But this seems like one of the highlights of his career....

[Chad Fairbanks]

Coulter fails to mention that McCarthy defended Nazi SS Officers who were convicted of slaughtering 88 American POWs.

Ok,. I'll address this one, based on the various articles and other pieces I've read about this episode this morning - what I got out of it, was that McCarthy was not necessarily defending the SS Officers who allegedly committed this attrocity, so much as he was fighting against the apparent manner in which their confessions were garnered - whether he was right or wrong, I can't say as I wasn't there, but a[pparently he believed in the system of Truth and Justice enough to fight against what he though was a blow against that system... but maybe that's just me...

[EGPWS]

...She sneers, she smears, she indicts by falsehood and distortion...

Thats not possible! If it were the case she would be a Liberal!!

[MaxPlus305]

Thanks, finally, a thoughtful response. I think it's important to exonerate McCarthy of this "Nazi" charge if we are going to hold him up as a hero.

As I said, I haven't read all of "Treason", but from the parts I've read and her TV appearances I've seen, it seems that she indicts liberals on the basis of hindsight...i.e. since the Verona cables show that such-and-such WAS a spy, then everyone who defended him is a traitor...It seems to me that in hindsight, these Nazis really WERE bastards who murdered American soldiers, and that Nazis were financing their defense. So how does McCarthy not fall under Coulter's seemingly broad standard of treason?

I don't disagree that there were many liberal traitors back in the day and today...I just think Ann's standard is a little too loose and broad...but again, just my opinion. I also think that it may have been in Coulter's favor to mention McCarthy's role in the Malmedy massacre trial. After all, if it can be shown that he was a levelheaded defender of proper justice, even when it came to Nazis....then it would be much harder for liberal critics to call him a maddog willing to destroy the Constitution.