A Conspiracy So Vast: Meet Ann Coulter, the Maureen Dowd of the conservatives

Opinion Journal ^ | 07/14/03 | DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

[Pokey78]

John G. Adams, a key figure in the proceedings that effectively ended Sen. Joseph McCarthy's career, passed quietly from the scene last week at age 91. Not surprisingly, his death made no news; it's been a while since those heady days when McCarthy launched his investigations of the Army, which had, he charged, been shielding countless Communist agents at Fort Monmouth and elsewhere. It fell to Adams, the Army's chief counsel, to deal with the charges, which he did to devastating effect in the Army-McCarthy hearings that held the nation in thrall in the 1950s.

[MaxPlus305]

You joined this forum on June 26th of this year and you're " just tired of the " You're either with Ann or you're against America " already ? Oh, and BTW, I've been here for five years and I have never seen such a post. Where, on this thread, has anyone said such a thing ? NOWHERE; THAT'S WHERE ! I'll say it again, "TREASON " is NOT a bio, not even a mini bio of McCarthy. There has been NO " whitewashing " of him, from what I've seen. If someone were to write a book about the Gallic Wars and left out Gaius Julius Caesar's fling with Cleopatra, that would NOT be " whitewashing " Caesar . Get it now ? Fine, don't, by any means, buy and read " TREASON ". Don't you dare! Remain ill informed.

A few things: a) I've lurked on this forum for awhile. Also, I've read Coulter LONG before coming onto FR and have gotten into discussions about her--FR is not the only place where you can learn about her. Furthermore, even in the short time that I've been on this board, there have been several threads about Coulter, all of which have had a few users who have accused everyone of dissing Coulter to be a liberal. If you did not see those kinds of posts early in this thread, I'll be happy to post the links.

I think it's fair for Rabinowitz to focus soley on Ann's treatment of McCarthyism--didn't someone here say that around 100 pages of "Treason" dealt with him? That seems like it's a major part of her book, and perhaps Rabinowitz is operating on the theory that if Ann is noticably sloppy on some major points, then how can we trust her on the minor points? What about the many people here who have attacked "Living History" because it left out details about Monica and other Clinton flings? In the span of 50 years, those events took up a very small time in Hillary's life, so should we excuse her for omitting some of the scandals of Billy's administration? Of course not. Her book, despite all the boring ass details of her girlhood, was a polemic defending the legitimacy of Billy's administration. Therefore, her omissions were dishonest.

Your comparison to Caesar is a bad one. Someone can write about the Gallic wars without mentioning Caesar's private life. But if you're going to defend McCarthy's political record, then you had better mention the major highlights of it...just as we should expect Hillary to at least mention the many scandals of Bill if she expects us to believe that Bill was a great president. I bet if McCarthy was one of the senators who went on the ATTACK against those Nazis that Ann would've put that in "Treason" in a heartbeat.

BTW, about your question of how much I know about McCarthy: He's not my specialty, which is why I've limited my judgment of him on this thread. I'm mainly concerned with why Ann tried to whitewash his history. I don't need to be alive during the 50s to be interested in Ann's attempt to defend him. Nor does being alive then make me an automatic expert about McCarthy (is John Kerry automatically an expert on war?).

[steve-b]

In WWII we honored the Geneva Conventions

The Geneva Conventions require basic adherence to the rules of war by both sides. Those who do not adhere to those rules (e.g. the SS then, al-Qaeda now) are, as far as the Conventions are concerned, the enemies general of mankind, to be dealt with as wolves are.

[MaxPlus305]

"I don't think that the charge made about McCarthy claiming that the U.S Army mis-treated the SS Officers can be labeled as defending them for them executing our soldiers. In WWII we honored the Geneva Conventions and I would have to look at that particular case before concluding that McCarthy was defending the Nazi's, he might have been trying to make sure we kept our commitment to the Geneva Conventions. " Very well said. Just because Ann didn't include it in the book does not mean it was omitted because it didn't support her thesis. As someone pointed out, this is not an overall biography of McCarthy. Ann had to have known about this issue and that it would come up. I haven't read Ann's book yet, but I, too get the impression that she picks a couple of small examples to demolish Ann. The vitriol is this article is stunning. Ann has shaken people up, and the effects could be surprising.

I agree that the Nazi incident can be seen in a positive light. I really think that it could've SERVED Ann's defense of McCarthy to at least mention it...because then it would stifle her critics' complaints that McCarthy was a subverter of justice. And that would've been very relevant to her goal of eliminating myths about McCarthy.

Yes, this article was vitrolic...but let's face it, vitriol is one of Ann's main draws. Can you blame someone for using the same towards her in a critique? Also...I don't think the amount of controversy this book has generated (especially if it's coming from the conservative side) is a perfect indicator of how good it is...or else Hillary would be up for a Pulitzer next year :).

[steve-b]

Even Patton realized that being a Nazi in 1943 was the same as being a Democrat or Republican was at that time for people in the US.

Again, in the eyes of both the law and general civilized values, being a member of the SS in 1943 is equivalent to being a member of a pirate crew in 1703 or al-Qaeda in 2003 -- such persons are "outlaws" in the classic sense of the term (outside the protection of the law). The only process of law that applies is to determine that the suspected individual is, in fact, a member of the SS (or whatever is applicable) and not some innocent bystander swept up by mistake.

[steve-b]

Puh-leeze. There was a legitimate defense for the Redcoats (let's face it, throwing rocks at men with guns is bucking for the Darwin Award). There was none whatsoever for illegal combatants such as SS members.

Maybe Ann disagrees with the previous sentence, in which case I await her column demanding the immediate release of the internees at Gitmo.

[TLBSHOW]

BS

[Cacique]

Mandale un poco de máte a la flaca (Ann). Esa chica necesita un poco de carne en sus huesos. Alomejor le ayuda con su apetito.

[presidio9]

C'mon dope. Coulter used the word "pinko" in her book. This discredits the pages and pages of hard evidence she supplied, doncha know?

[steve-b]

McCarthy, undeserving as he may be of the extreme villification he's gotten over the years, is far from a rehabilitatable character, as even so august a figure as William F. Buckley has been known to admit on occasion. He was a flawed man who properly recognized a security threat and then handled addressing that threat in a less than laudable manner. It's my view that his alcoholism, and the grandiosity that often goes along with alcoholism, played a central role in many of his excesses.

That pretty much summarizes it. McCarthy figured out that he could use the security situation as an issue, and the security situation was in fact bad enough that some of his more or less random accusations hit the mark just as a shotgun blast in the middle of a flock is bound to bring down a few quail.

[steve-b]

Was there ever any doubt that, when caught, those criminals would be or were treated with extreme prejudice - also in violation of the Geneva Convention and those tenets of civilization we uphold and respect?

*sigh* How many times has it been explained on this very board that the Geneva Convention sets rules defining who it protects, and that certain acts make you an "illegal combatant" and beyonds its pale?

[MJY1288]

I hadn't really heard of Rabinowitz before this article and didn't anything about her, So I was guilty of assuming she was a liberal... MY BAD!

But I did read Ann's book and it isn't a biograpghy on McCarthy. It's a book about how liberals can't be trusted with our National Security and the tactics they use to demonize those who call them on it.

I think the Venona project vindicates McCarthy, Ann Coulter just points out that McCarthy was right about the Soviet Spies in the democratic party and McCarthyism was a manufactured slogan much like we hear the liberals today claim we are questioning their patriotism when a liberal like Jim McDermott goes to Baghdad and calls our President a liar and we call them on it.

[MJY1288]

No, There is a difference between uniformed soldiers who represent a nation and battlefield combatants who are hired killers for terrorist organizations

[Right Wing Professor]

I haven't read TREASON, nor do I intend to.

I read it yesterday. You really ought to; it won't take much of your time. Its strengths are its passion; its indictment of liberalism and anti-anti-communism in the 40's and 50's; and its central point, which may be too strong for many stomachs but which deserves discussion. Its weaknesses are that it was clearly written in a great hurry - it's disorganized and poorly edited; and that Coulter is sometimes too self-consciously outrageous. Yes, it would be nice if someone wrote a comprehensive, thoughtful indictment of the liberal flirtatation with Communism in the pre-Vietnam years, but to my knowledge no one has, and at the very least this book is a start. It's also an excellent base for further research.

[hoosiermama]

"It's also an excellent base for further research."

YES!

Check out the "acknowledgments" and research "notes" for further reading.

Because Ann is Ann, she will be read by many who would never pick us a "comprehensive, thoughtful indictment of the liberal flirtation with Communism." It IS an easy read inspite of the disorganization. (Written for the masses not the intellectuals).

Yes, she off the wall! But it certainly is not dry, a possibility since it is filled with information (documented in the 46 pages of notes).

[sinkspur]

Really, since you hate conservatives and conservatism

You sign up today and you've already appointed yourself to the thread police?

I was a conservative when you were in short pants, bub.

Lighten up.

[drjimmy]

A true conservative wouldn’t write a hit piece on an author in an effort to shut them up. Debate, intelligence, and the truth are not anathema to true conservatives. Rabinowitz’s libel piece on Ann Coulter shows that they are all anathema to her. And don’t give me any bullsh!t about some token article she wrote a decade ago. She’s taken up the liberal call to arms to libel Ann Coulter—she’s a liberal. Her trash article is full of nothing but hate and mush. Nowhere in the article does she actually go after Coulter’s facts, Rabinowitz, like a true liberal, is content with just spewing libel and hate speech.
Since you throw around the word "libel" a lot, you should look up what it means. Nowhere in your little screed do you actually use facts to back up your so-called argument, you simply throw out a bunch of adjectives. Please show us exactly where in the article it libels Coulter. And exactly what "token article [Rabinowitz] wrote a decade ago" are you referring to?

“I won't claim that Coulter skewed things...but for now, it's enough of a charge that she left some major relevant facts out.”
Such as?
I dunno. Try asking the person who posted it, since it wasn't me.

[hoosiermama]

Excellent post......Thanks for the reminder.

All goes along with our founding fathers's attitude of "don't agree with what you said, but will defend to the death your right to say it."; Fairness for all --jury of peers.;etc
McCarthy for all his faults knew what the country should be about and lived it.

[Bernard Marx]

at the very least this book is a start. It's also an excellent base for further research.

Good comments. I agree with your points, good and bad, and am delighted that Ann has finally broken the "Silence Barrier."

[Sicon]

"Ms. Coulter's work includes an admiring if brief biography of McCarthy's political career. One that for some reason excludes the senator's remarkable efforts on behalf of the members of the SS battle group who executed 86 American POWs in the Ardennes campaign in December 1944; otherwise known as the Malmedy Massacre. In his impassioned efforts on behalf of the accused--one never to be repeated in his investigative career--the senator charged that the U.S. Army had cruelly mistreated the former SS men. Ask Ann why she never mentions this. It's pretty damning.

And whether this story is true or not, how does it change anything? Does it somehow make McCarthy's accusations about Soviet spies in the U.S. government and military, now proven by deciphered cables from the Venona Project, unfounded, as liberals have for decades insisted?

The point of Coulter's book is to show that McCarthy was correct in his suspicions that communists and Soviet spies were peppered throughout our government and military during the 40's and 50's, and shielded by liberals, both at the time and in the years since. The declassified cables gathered in the Venona Project prove that McCarthy was NOT on some hysterical, baseless witch hunt. Whether he supported leniency for some SS soldiers from WWII does not change that fact.

Again, the whole point of "Treason" is to show clearly that liberals smeared McCarthy, that they lied, over and over again, and that McCarthy was absolutely right about a communist/Soviet conspiracy to infiltrate our government. Getting hung up about his defense of the SS soldiers is missing the point. I would venture to say that the reason Coulter didn't include anything about it in her book is that it is totally irrelevant. Just because McCarthy defended some people that others would not have, does not somehow mean that he fabricated incriminating information against people he suspected of being communists, or that he ruined the lives of innocent people, etc., as the liberals have insisted he did.

And finally, do you know the specifics of McCarthy's defense of the SS men? Do you know why he suggested that Americans had mistreated them? He may not have been right, but that doesn't mean he made things up in that case, and isn't that the implication of mentioning it to begin with? To suggest that there, as with his investigation into Soviet spies, he fabricated incriminating evidence, intentionally smeared people, etc.?

[Bernard Marx]

Thank you very much for these links. I plan to do a lot more research into the McCarthy/Malmedy matter before commenting.

It's very interesting that Utley had been an active Communist and a participant in Owen Lattimore's Communist spy-riddled Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). Yet she ultimately defended McCarthy's motives in the Malmedy matter. Like much of the history of the era under discussion, there's been a lot of deliberate revisionism and distortion. There are many leaves on this artichoke that need to be exfoliated.