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.

[swilhelm73]

Andrew Sullivan has some words from Ron Radosh, one of the best historians of the time period, and another serious conservative writer;

"I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument." Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap."

[Sicon]

Cases like that of Annie Lee Moss, a black code clerk who had lost her job at the Pentagon when she was hauled before McCarthy's committee as a security risk and Communist Party member. She had been confused with a different Annie Lee Moss, the witness explained--and who Karl Marx was she could not even say. So evident was Ms. Moss's confusion at what she was doing there that applause erupted in the hearing room when Democratic Sen. Stuart Symington declared he believed her

Reading this, I can only wonder if Ms. Rabinowitz even read "Treason". The whole point of Ann's mention of Annie Lee Moss is that far from proving that she was NOT involved with communism in some way, the evidence (testimony of an FBI informant, Communist Party records, etc.) suggested that she was (she was in fact the ONLY Annie Lee Moss in D.C. at the time, and she had been receiving the "Daily Worker" (a communist party newspaper) at both her current and previous addresses. Furthermore, Communist party records listed one "Annie Lee Moss" at the address where this "poor put-upon wash woman" testified that she lived. But Rabinowitz writes this: "She had been confused with a different Annie Lee Moss, the witness explained..." Rabinowitz presents the questionable testimony of "the witness" (um, that would be Annie Lee Moss herself) as fact, as if it had proven somehow that McCarthy had the wrong Annie Lee Moss. This is like saying that because a murderer said he wasn't the one who committed a murder, he didn't do it.

Lastly, the investigation of Annie Lee Moss was for the purpose of removing her (if there were strong enough suspicions about her loyalties) from her security-sensitive postion within the Code Room at the Pentagon. She was free to be a communist, she just wasn't free to be a communist and work in areas of national security importance.

Regardless of how educated Rabinowitz might be, or how wonderful a "journalist" she might be, this is clearly an uninformed hit-piece on Coulter and this book.

[hoosiermama]

Maybe breaking the "silence barrier" is the most important things AC has done. The book is being talked about in many circles. I received mine on the Tuesday it was released and immediately read it. Knew before I got half way through it was going to be very controvercial.

What I find interesting about the RABINOWITZ article she has taken on the modus operandi of the liberals Coulter points out in the book.

1. Changing the subject (Malmedy matter/McCarthy vs Liberal agenda)
2. Attacking without using all the facts (Annie Lee Moss}
3. Exaggeration/ Generalization (the Black list vs. McCarthy's 53 members of government in sensitive areas)
4. Using position to ridicule/intimidate others into silence.


Rabinowitz may have made a BIG mistake.

[steve-b]

There is a difference between uniformed soldiers who represent a nation and battlefield combatants who are hired killers for terrorist organizations

The Geneva Convention rules defining "soldiers", "partisans", etc (and thereby defining those who fight outside any of the above catagories as an "illegal combatant" are rather more extensive than that). The fact that al-Qaeda thugs wear no uniform is one of their violations, but far from the only one.

Under international law, the perps of the Malmedy Massacre were entitled to no process of law beyond "yep, we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that they're SS, all right -- hang 'em high". The US went well beyond that, and McCarthy's defense of the Malmedy perps thus has no rule-of-law justification.

[WL-law]

Your post mirrored my thoughts in post #198 exactly. Bullseye!

[jaime1959]

While I think Ann has some salient points to make, her overly aggressive tone and over-the-top accusations and innuendo are off-putting. She really needs to dial it down a bit. I’d much rather have Dorothy Rabinowitz representing conservatives than the cartoonish Ms. Coulter.

[MJY1288]

I havn't researched what exactly happened Malmedy Massacre and how McCarthy was "defending" the Nazi's, so I can't comment either way. But I can't see why this should discredit Ann Coulter's book because she didn't include this episode in McCarthy's life. Her book is titled "Treason" and it is about "Liberal Treachery, From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" not a biography of Joe McCarthy. I think Rabinowitz is nit picking just a bit, It would be like discrediting a book on the Cuban Missile Crisis because the Author didn't include in the story that JFK had an affair with an intern.

[DLfromthedesert]

For awhile, there was a show on CNBC on Friday evenings featuring the editorial staff of WSJ, discussing important issues that in the news.

Dorothy Rabinowitz was thoughtful, articulate, and very original. She was my favorite; certainly NOT a moron or a liberal.

[Mamzelle]

Would like to ping your ping list for an observation of mine, and would like comment:

I read this Rabinowitz, and also read the Salon Conanson article (well, I couldn't finish that tedious Consason one--too full of faux-Dickensian victiorianesqe constructions, too many overused repetitive redundant adjectives--you get the picture).

They both go on at length about Ann's debunking of the left's sacred bete noir--McCarthy.

Notice what they do not mention, something which was an essential and fascinating history chronicled in Coulter's new book:

Hiss and Whittaker Chambers--the left, when they review Coulter, refuse to notice the smashing account of Alger Hiss, Soviet Spy. Undeniable evidence convicted this man, and the left now want to forget he existed.

[Miss Marple]

That is a good point. I haven't read the book yet, and as I said, I didn't know about this SS thing, so I am sort of standing on the sidelines wondering what is going on.

[Bernard Marx]

Maybe breaking the "silence barrier" is the most important things AC has done.

I agree. No one in their right mind would have even tried to do it before Venona: the attacks would have been merciless. And they may still be.

The media are still the same old media, and we must never forget how they shilled for the Bent One in very recent memory. They are very experienced in deliberately muddying clear waters and Ann is in for lots of nasty scrutiny and false charges. I'm greatly disappointed attacks are coming from people who call themselves 'conservatives' like Rabinowitz and Andrew Sullivan, as well as predictable Lefties like Conason.

[steve-b]

I think the Venona project vindicates McCarthy

Unless he somehow knew about this evidence at the time, it does no such thing, any more than the modern atomic theory of matter vindicates the Greek philosophers who guessed that matter was made up of tiny particles.

[MEGoody]

"Well, if ya consider McCarthy defending Nazi's who executed 88 of our POWS, and accusing our military of being cruel to them a minor point, ya got me there."

I'm curious. How exactly did he 'defend' them? Is there some source where I can read exact quotes?

The only reason I ask is that the left spins an awful lot of stuff. (Not saying you are a lefty, by the way.) I'd just like to make sure McCarthy actually said what is claimed.

[rightofrush]

Two should suffice. The firebombing of German population centers and the deliberate starvation German POWs in Europe by Eisenhower (my mother-in-law visited relatives in Finland right after WWII and brought back first-hand reports).

[Dark Knight]

There was a massacre. How it happened and who did what are the questions. The Army hid information, and General Hardy (not TG Joe) stopped the executions. He did so saying they really did not know what happened. Of course to continue to execute the Germans would if you did not really know what happened would be...

This is hardly the smoking gun for Joe being anything but principled. It is like the leftis penchant for calling any authority Nazis.

DK