The Trouble with Treason (David Horowitz regarding Ann Coulter)

Frontpagemagazine.com ^ | 7/8/03 | David Horowitz

[DPB101]

Why is she equivocating about Jack Kennedy anway? Kennedy was not only not a traitor, he was not even a weak anti-Communist, as she claims.

Treason, page 11: "John F. Kennedy's pronouncements on Communism could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy. His brother Robert worked for McCarthy."

Treason, page 101: "John F. Kennedy fiercely defended McCarthy. . .in response to a speaker's lighthearted remarks that, unlike the law school, Harvard College could be proud of never having produced either an Alger Hiss or a Joe McCarthy, Kennedy erupted, "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor?"

[Support Free Republic]

"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered

[DPB101]

Join the fun...Horowitz has distorted or ignored one fact after the next. For instance:

A lot of what she says about Democrats is true, but nearly half the members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Subcommittee (McCarthy’s vehicle) were Democrats.

What good was that if they weren't there? From From July 10, 1953 to January 25, 1954 every Democrat on the Senate Internal Subcommittee boycotted every session of the Subcommittee. In the House Committee, little was done until Republicans became the majority party in 1947. HCUA itself was the creation of a Soviet agent--Samuel Dickstein (D-NY).

[David Isaac]

It seems as if as many people make the mistake of equating liberals and Democrats, as those who make the mistake of equating conservatives and Republicans.

Coulter's book is not a hundred percent defensible, which does not mean it's wrong, just not defensible. In many cases, she more than likely points the finger at those in the spotlight, the ones who ostensibly make the decisions. Weasels and moles shun the light.

If Truman was not guilty of treason he was guilty of terminal stupidity or ignorance and possibly just plain political blindness. (Truman Article - NewsMax, July 2nd) Links, I do not do yet.

[gortklattu]

Horowitz makes the mistake of many: Democrats aren't necessarily liberals.

[SubMareener]

But now to my dismay, I find myself unable to find such satisfaction in Conason’s reaction to Ann’s new book Treason, or in the responses of other liberals like The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen (who has also attacked me in the past). In a review in the Post, Cohen dismisses Ann’s book as “Crackpot Conservatism,” reflecting the fact that their responses are not so much yelps of outrage as cackles over what they view as an argument so over the top that only true believers will take it seriously. It is distressing when someone you admire gives credibility to liberal attacks. But that, unfortunately, is what this book has done.
.....
Not all critics of Ashcroft should be put in this category however. There are many genuine patriots who are concerned about the balance between liberty and security. William Safire is one from the Republican side; Nat Hentoff is another from the Left. Making such discriminations is important, and to the extent that she hasn’t made them Ann Coulter opens herself to the criticisms that have been leveled against her. But in the long run, this will turn out to be a lesser fault than emphasizing the wrong problem or promoting America’s enemies as America’s victims – which is what her liberal antagonists have done.

David, David, you just can't stay mad at her, can you? ;-) Have you heard the one about the distinction without a difference?

[Alberta's Child]

One of John F. Kennedy's many sexual affairs was with a woman named Ellen Rometsch, who was later revealed to be an agent of the East German government. That itself may very well have been the most treasonous action ever taken by a U.S. president.

[DPB101]

I wonder if he even read the book.

by refusing to credit the laudable role played by patriotic, anti-Communist liberals like Truman, Kennedy and Humphrey, Coulter has compromised her case . . .

Treason, page 11:

There were, admittedly, a few rare and striking exceptions to the left's overall obtuseness to Communist totalitarianism. The Democratic Party was certainly more patriotic then than it has become. Throughtout the sixties, the Democrats could still produce the occasional Scoop Jackson Democrat . (JFK's statments on communism ) could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy . . .for all his flaws, President Harry Truman was a completely different breed than today's Democrats: He unquestionably loved his country

Treason, page 68:

Walter Reuther and Hubert Humphrey. . .were far rougher with Communists than McCarthy ever was. . .in 1954 Senator Humphrey introduced a bill that would have outlawed the Communist Party. Outlawed it. That was the year the Senate voted to censure McCarthy. . .

[Jumper]

When the actual facts of the book are disputed and shown to be false I will be swayed by these writings, however, her last book was demonized by the Left/Press and stood the test of documented history on Ann's side. To make the book seem less legimite, the author grabs a sound bite from and interview!

[MEG33]

That's why Ann should hone her debating skills.She doesn't explain or justify her comments well verbally and someone like Matthews discombobulates her.I,too don't like the word treason used as a blanket condemnation of the Democratic party,though I believe the progressives are dangerous,socialists, and anti the America I want.There are those in office who play footsie with the World Workers groups in anti war protests which turns my stomach.The moving force behind anti war groups are communists.Not all anti war folks are communists,however.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

You argue that Horowitz's goal is "to make the book seem less legitimate."

But as pointed out at the top of his column, Horowitz has been a big fan of Coulter, even running her column on his web page. He is a bold and courageous conservative.

So he certainly has no axe to grind, no reason to distort the facts in order to delegitamize Coulter.

I'd say this column was definitely written "more in sorrow than in anger."

[HISSKGB]

It is strange that Horowitz has not either read or mentioned the Amerasia affair.

Owen Lattimore was up to his neck in espionage with the spies in that case. Communist Lattimore took a big hit during the MacCarran hearings over his complicity in engineering support for the communists in China.

It is misleading to continue to make a big distinction between CP party members and others who 'act like' communists because major spy Whitaker Chambers was ordered by his handler to drop his communist party membership when he began his spying. Communist traitors did not have to have CP membership cards and many did not.

I also should mention that Lattimore's supporters smeared and harassed those revealed his duplicity.

[DPB101]

Why did Horowitz flat out distort or ignore what Ann said in the book? Why is he claiming she said things she did not?

[goldstategop]

The quotes make one wonder: did David Horowitz read all of Treason or did his critique stem from what he heard from media reviews and her liberal critics? Yes, there were Democrats and anti-Communist liberals who were loyal to America. Ann should have made a mention of this fact before going on to deal with those liberals who were either supporters or fellow travelers for the Communist cause. I don't think Ann's right about McCarthy's tactics, which were morally flawed and politically indefensible but she is right about the fact the American people were in agreement with the Wisconsin Senator about the larger menace that America faced at the time. I think Irving Kristol himself stated as much in a celebrated essay about the distinction Americans made between the enemy McCarthy said was a danger to the American way of life and the tactics he used to expose those in its service. Treason does tend at points to overgeneralize and fall into the trap of making too much of McCarthy. But its also right that with a handful of exceptions most of his famous victims were really malefactors working on behalf of the most aggressive and brutal tyranny known to human history. It may be for that alone that we owe Ann a debt of lasting gratitude.

[mr.pink]

... and someone like Matthews discombobulates her.I,too don't like the word treason used as a blanket condemnation of the Democratic party,...

Mathews, as a lifelong democrat, was offended by the broad brush use of the word treason and told Ann exactly that to her face. He took it personally and thus went after Ann especially agressively.

I like Ann, but completely understand Mathews irritation.

[MEG33]

I think it's the interviews that are the problem.She does stumble there and therefore I want her to get a coach!Write Horowitz.I think some columnists skim the book,read others reviews and comments and distort terribly.Even Dorothy Rabaniwitz comes off badly .I loathe Joe Conason.

[FreedomPoster]

>>I wonder if he even read the book.

I keep wondering that about all the columns criticizing Ann and Treason. All of them seem to have major points that are refuted by a few direct quotes from the text.

[jazzlite]

Ann Coulter: He was not as strong a president as a Republican would have been. But I’m referring, as I say again, I’m referring to a party that is functionally treasonable….

What is with Horowitz, anyway? Ann draws fire because she is refreshingly blunt and direct. She doesn't play around with trying to be nice to those who are the enemies of freedom here at home. Her message, in my view, is to describe what the Democratic party has currently evolved to. Is it not wonderful that this very georgous, razor sharp, fearless, highly intelligent, richly successful mouthpiece is a conservative woman? She is only doing what David, himself, has so successfully done which is to shine a bright light on all that liberal sleaze which has been so injurious to our culture. Ann, YOU GO, GIRL!! Maybe you will be President someday.

[FreedomPoster]

>>The moving force behind anti war groups are communists.Not all anti war folks are communists,however.

No, but when those non-communist anti-war folks attend anti-war protests organized by communists, they become useful idiots.

[DPB101]

I've read the executive transcripts and for the life of me I can see nothing at all morally wrong with McCarthy's tactics. He bent over backwards to accommodate witnesses. No one was badgered. He and those who testified openly were the ones under attack. More than a few witnesses feared their lives would be wrecked by communists and their supporters if their testimony was made public. McCarthy sealed it for 50 years to protect them.

I don't see what is wrong with Congress calling Americans citizens before it and asking them if they belong to an organization funded by a foreign power which is trying to overthrow the government.

When the Democrats ruled, they set up the McCormack/Dickstein committee which went after those who opposed the New Deal. People were smeared as Nazi sympathizers and a few were alleged to be planning a putsch against FDR. That was done on the orders of Stalin by a man on the Soviet payroll--Dickstein of New York.

We hear over and over about McCarthy saying he had a list. Why don't we hear about Dickstein claiming, in 1941, that he had a list of 110 fascist organizations which had the keys to the back door of Congress?