Replies

There have been some wonderfully silly posts in here by lefty-lurkers and others, yours among them, so let me clear some things up:

1. Yes, I can read. I read Conason, and I read Coulter. Unlike you (and some others) I actually read both! Worse for me, I suppose, I actually lived through most of the years she discusses, so I know first-hand what she's talking about, and trust me, she's right. By the way, a personal request: Please, in the future, when are trying to be witty, say something that's actually witty; otherwise you just seem silly and petty.

2. 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. The occasional specific exception (e.g., Scoop Jackson, or the occasional moment of an Al Gore--most people probably won't remember; it was in the 80's) does not disprove the general thesis. That's the subject Conason fails to or refuses to engage. Instead, he spends however many words name-calling like a six year old, which is the kind of exertion that should raise the antennae: why, in that much space, can't he at least try to answer her general charge? Instead, the strategy of his piece is to claim that she left some things out, or got this or that specific instance of things wrong. The fact is (for example), there were communists in the State Department, and they were defended by Democrats, and promoted by Democrats, despite warnings by authorities. More recently, Democrats led the charge not just against the Viet Nam war, but for Ho Chi Minh. They praised Sadaam.... One should be entitled to ask, after a certain point, what's with these guys (and women)? Why do they always--always!--take the anti-American position? These are sensible questions, asked by Coulter, unanswered by Conason.

If you're a controversialist like Coulter, you could then ask the next logical question, which is: how would the positions taken by Democrats be different if they were actively seeking to undermine the country? Again, from Conason, words and words, but no answer, other than to call Ann in so many words a penis-head.

The point of the headline to my post was that some men refuse to take women seriously. Name-calling is not a serious argument. Ask yourself this question: if treason had been written by, say, Christopher Hitchens or George Will or Bill Buckley, would Conason respond with this bitch-screed?

I hope this is helpful.

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.

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.