A Conspiracy So Vast

WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | 7/7/2003 | Dorothy Rabinowitz

[Long Cut]

Ping. Interesting discussion of a popular book. I've read it cover-to-cover, and cannot find much at all to argue about with Ms. Coulter's central thesis.

I notice that few others can, either, else they would debate IT, and not the alleged "suffering" of Communist marks, or sling invective against the authoress.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Interesting. I haven't read the book, but I will read through this discussion.

[Long Cut]

I recommend it highly. Whilst Ms. Coulter seems to "rub some the wrong way" with her somewhat direct style, I rather like it. Mrs. Cut, BTW, shares that selfsame style.

Even if you too find you dislike her style of writing, her ultimate conclusions are unassailable, and her evidence and documentation impeccable.

I am engaged in a fruitless search of my area for her previous work, Slander. My local bookstore is sold out of ALL her work, which according to the staff, sells as soon as it is stacked.

The Hildebeast's novel is, however, available in plentiful supply, and is discounted.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I read Sam Tannenbaums' "Whittaker Chambers" years ago. Ann is not plowing new ground and isn't nearly as exacting as Tannenbaum

. . . and if Ann hadn't written Treason we would all now be discussing Whittaker Chambers. Yeah, right.

Ann takes on topics which the left thinks it has buried, and makes them topical. Much as Reagan, calling the Evil Empire evil, took away the patina of legitimacy which the Soviets thought had permanently been granted by FDR, Truman, et al.

She does it with strong documentation on the one hand, and sarcastic invective on the other. Strong documentation alone gives you--yawn--Whittaker Chambers. Sarcastic invective alone works--for a liberal. But while Hillary never even lets anyone ask the first question, a conservative gets asked the second question and had better have an answer.

And that's not the description of a "bombthrower."

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Historical perspective is the only way to distinguish the truth from the impassioned claims of the ignorant. In 1954 there seemed, for example, to be some excuse for the swirling confusion about the guilt of Alger Hiss and the validity of defenses of the Rosenbergs.

The "fog of war" is simply the fog of current events, made excruciating to commanders by their acute need for information on which to base life-or-death decisions. Decisions which, in retrospect, will often look foolish to those who can't empathize with the commander's ignorance of the enemy's, and sometimes even his own, forces' disposition.

But what is far worse than blundering because contradictory indications confused you in the heat of battle is failure to put the pieces together in the big picture, half a century after the fact. And that is what America is guilty of.

Ann Coulter has written two history books to grind sawdust: Treason and Slander. They document two things--the fact that "liberalism" assaults rather than defending freedom, and the fact that journalism is "liberal." This has been in front of the noses of the public all our lives, and should go without saying. Instead she has to load up her works with invective to make us see the obvious.

And why is that? It is because even conservatives get too involved with current events, looking forward into that fog rather than looking behind us to the clear landmarks of history.

In chapter 3 of Treason, Ann compares the positions of people in the Bush Administration with those of people which the secret (even, nay especially, from Truman!) Venona decrypts demonstrate were in fact Soviet spies.

Alger Hiss (assistant to the secretary of state) can best be compared to Paul Wolfowitz! How would we feel if we knew he was an al Qaeda operative, and Bush didn't care?!

Harry Dexter White was assistant to the secretary of the Treasury. How would we feel if we knew he was an al Qaeda operative, and Bush didn't care?!

Lauchlin Currie matches up with Andrew card. How would we feel if we knew he was an al Qaeda operative, and Bush didn't care?!

Duncan Lee, chief of staff to the head of the OSS, matches up to an assistant to CIA Director Tenent. How would we feel if we knew he was an al Qaeda operative, and Bush didn't care?!

Harry Hopkins matches up with Karl Rove. How would we feel if we knew he was an al Qaeda operative, and Bush didn't care?!

And the list goes on!! If that was the situation in the Bush Administration, does anyone think that effective action would be taken against al Qaeda?? Yet that was the situation in the FDR/Truman Administrations--and yet serious people contend that the important thing to know about the era was that "Joe McCarthy was a zealot who gave his name to the abuse of civil rights".

Yes, McCarthy's name was given that connotation--by his enemies and America's, in a successful red herring operation which drastically weakened the heat they would have deservedly gotten.

[NativeNewYorker]

Excellent. BTTT

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

When you reflect on it, the initial question was less the depth of penetration of Soviet agents into our government than it was, whether or not it was a bad thing. The commies were so thick in the FDR/Truman Administrations because "liberals" were impressed with communism even if they were tentative about going whole hog with that system here.

Reagan was the one who called the Evil Empire out, and brought it down. FDR had no intention of damaging the Soviet Union. None whatsoever.

[NativeNewYorker]

I'll take it a step further. From the NY Times on down, the press and its slipstream thought Communism was GOOD and therefore Communist penetration of govt was GOOD. Support/covering for Soviet evils was a part of that equation.