Rating: 
Summary: Revisionist in overdrive
Review: What's next Ann...Nixon's inevitable resurrection by the right?
Giving it an extra star for the entertainment value.
Rating: 
Summary: Demagogues in the Stock Pens
Review: Over the last several decades the intelligence level of the average American has plummeted. At the same time their fear and anxiety have increased exponentially. Consonant with that has been the rise of sleazy demagogues of which Ann Coulter is a true poster child. She is not just fatuous, not just hysterical, not just wrong and pathologically opportunistic, she is also intentionally evil. Her defense of low-to-the-ground dung weasel McCarthy is an apotheosis of sick malice. This is a new kind of revisionism that would be met with the appropriate scorn were not the general level of American thought reduced to that just above the rank of grazing cattle.I cannot single her out as exceptional. She is merely a member of that fell cabal which includes the proponents of Fox Network, NewsMax, various TV and radio personalities and press catamites. It is not enough that mediocrity should be celebrated in the former land of the free, nor that a dyslexic Caligula should illegally preen in the Oval Office; now all that is venal, base and consciously wicked is celebrated as well. In better times such a malformed creature would have her head in the stocks and be pelted by rotten vegetables. It is a sad day that the dignity of trees are submitted to this abuse. Better that her words were printed on toilet paper where their commentary would meet a more fitting use. You have my sympathy America, your decline is awesome and your fate a thing of terrible wonder. Wake up while there is still time and world enough. Your residents have become an embarrassment to everything that breathes. Now you may return to your scheduled viewing of The Bachelorette.
Rating:
Summary: Conservative intellectual??
Review: "Conservative intellectual" is an oxymoron. It's amazing how easily this bimbo can draw a line across an arbitrary spot of the political spectrum and label everyone on one side a traitor.
Rating:
Summary: The Madness of Queen Ann
Review: One of the most fascinating outcomes, to me, about Coulter's latest is that she learned absolutely nothing from the bashing her last screed took from the on-line fact-checkers. Treason is arguably more offensive than Slander (is that possible?)in the mistated, fabricated, and error-laden way it attempts to take out all liberals and Democrats over the last 60 years. Truman was soft on Communism? George Marshall was a Commie sympathizer? JFK pushed around by the Soviets (can anyone say Cuban Missile Crisis?)In a word, these are preposterous theses, even for most right wing whackos--which Ann firmly establishes herself (if there was any doubters out there) as one with Treason. The name-calling and ad hominen attacks are so frequent, and, simply out-of-control in their lunacy, it's just too tough to get through a single chapter--any serious reader will find her rationales so far off the charts they will simply flip to the next chapter to see if any sanity is present in her writing. They won't find it. Ann's premise is that the dems and the libs have been so wrong about the Cold War that their collective behavior represents treason on the part of the party since WWII. In her eyes Truman, Kennedy, and Carter, in particular, were treasonous. Why? Because they all refused to adapt the whacko right wing wet dream of nuking the Soviets into the stone age. By the way, all these Democratic Presidents served in the armed forces, with Truman and Kennedy being true war heroes. Traitors? The most bizarre element of the book (and that's saying a lot, believe me) is Ann's attempt to resurrect the infamous Joe McCarthy into a revisionist anti-commie hero. Ann must have been in the acute phase of some bipolar disorder when she wrote this part of the book. Coulter apparently ignored all the writing out there about McCarthy's disengenuous anti-Communism pose--he was simply trying to further his political career. Drew Pearson's famous expose is perhaps the most devastating, but I know Coulter didn't even read it--it would disprove her thesis that McCarthy was misunderstood and done in by the libs and the dems, as she contends. Which is, of course, not true. He was done in by Ike and the progressive Republicans when his reckless attack on the Army blew up in his face. Anyone who knows a little history will know this obvious fact ignored by Coulter. The book contains dozens upon dozens of factual errors and historical misreadings like this, page after page. This isn't meant as a personal attack, though many will insist it is, but I feel this latest baloney from Coulter confirms that the lady, the Queen of the Far Right, is truly unhinged. Anybody got any Lithium out there for Ann?
Rating: 
Summary: Liberal one-star reviews below prove its really good
Review: Historically, liberals have seroius problems with fact, they need to operate entirely on emotion. Ann Coulter is dangerous to liberals because she is very fact oriented and even footnotes her sources (something ultra liberals like Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore cannot do because they need to make things up to get the emotional charge needed). This book is fun to read and very informative.
Rating:
Summary: A stunning exemplar of mindless servility to power
Review: To respond to the undiscriminating dittoheads who've five-starred this, Ann has a "preternatural gift" for false elegance in her phraseology, pompous diction in her half-truths, long Latinate words that belie the sheer vacuousness of her theses. Like her previous book, this is a stunning exemplar of mindless servility to power. Her facts are distorted and cherry-picked, much like the intelligence information cynically used to justify the latest chapter in America's "war on terror." Any third grader would realize that the term "war on terror" itself is self-contradictory, but Coulterian propagandists can't see the forest through the dollar signs. While I knew beforehand that Treason was a work of supreme self-delusion, I was under the impression that her latest book was better thought-out than Slander. On the contrary, Coulter still has the intellectual subtleness of a sledgehammer wielded in a dark cellar. I found her deceptions both obvious and vulgar. To claim that no one's life was destroyed by being blacklisted in the red scares is just dumb. In her America, anyone not completely prostituting herself to corporate power is unamerican, and worthy of disenfranchisement, if not death. Like a putative liberal bias in megacorporation-controlled mainstream media institutions, large-scale unamericanism among Americans is, in its very conception, something that could exist only in a deeply totalitarian culture. Dissenters in the Netherlands, Canada, or France, for example, could never be labeled undutch, anti-Canadian, or unfrench. People would just laugh. Ann Coulter is not a particularly gifted thinker. But, as with the sitting president, this works to her advantage. It makes her indoctrination that much more bone-deep and affords her an almost psychotic obliviousness to inconvenient facts that do not support her conclusions. Sensationalism is more saleable than clear-headedness, and the bestseller lists are a chilling demonstration that her lubricious lucubrations are marketably outré. Michael Moore may be riding a wave that is in some ways similar, but the parallels are really not that compelling. Moore can play fast and loose with facts on occasion, but he is not beholden to power. When he is wrong in a detail, his global correctness is not seriously compromised by this overarching tendency. Annie is a patriot alright, in the sense defined by Ambrose Bierce: "One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors." And Treason is the embodiment of Biercian patriotism, "Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name." After reading Treason, I can think of few Americans alive today who better justify his cynicism. If this be treason, make the most of it! - Patrick Henry
Rating:
Summary: Ann Coulter Does Her Homework
Review: The most important point made by Ann Coulter in TREASON is that the liberals were consistently on the wrong side in the Cold War and they have been repeating that mistake by again dragging their feet in the war against Muslim extremists. During the Cold War liberals convinced us that Soviet domination could only be slowed or contained. That belief seemed to be supported by our experiences with Communists in Korea, Cuba, Viet Nam and even Central America. After Reagan came to power we learned that the triumph of Communism was not necessarily inevitable. Reagan undertook several initiatives to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. The most significant actions were the strengthening of our military and the start of a missile shield to protect America. He also decided to go on the offensive by funding anti-Communist rebels and invading Grenada. Congressional Democrats opposed all of these tactics. Liberals have often been resisting the war against Muslim extremists since it began in earnest with the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979.Liberal appeasers were admittedly quiet during the brief period of mourning after the brutal attack on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001. Recently, however, the opposition to the American war effort has been taken up again by liberals in full force. In TREASON Ann Coulter supports the above arguments with much anecdotal evidence and numerous footnotes. Her writing style may not be to everyone's liking but nobody can say that she doesn't do her homework.
Rating:
Summary: The Trouble With Ann
Review: "Treason"'s admirers invariably praise it as breathtaking and eye-opening, underscoring the enormity of Coulter's reinterpretation of much contemporary history. But this begs the question; if the history of post-WWII America has been so distorted, why has no one before Coulter exposed it? Is the liberal conspiracy that powerful? Were Coulter's fellow conservatives too timid to speak the truth, or too blind to see it? Or is Coulter's case based on exaggeration and distortion?
First, simplest and clearest, are the basic factual errors, of which several have already been documented by reviewers; one can examine a number at spinsanity.com, a non-partisan site which similarly debunked errors in Michael Moore's latest book. Coulter does not deny or invent plain facts very often, but she does rely heavily on misrepresentation. For example, observes Spinsanity, Coulter claims the media engages in "total suppression" of the religion of Muslim criminals and terrorists, such as the Washington sniper; 'You need a New York Times decoder ring' to find out 'John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim.' In fact, not only did the Times repeatedly report this fact, it devoted an article to exploring religion and other motives of the killings.
Then there are the larger, historical flights of fancy. To describe Truman, Kennedy, or LBJ as soft on communism is absurd. JFK was responsible for the Bay of Pigs, went eye-to-eye with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crises, and put our first troops in Vietnam. It was then LBJ who extended this support to the point of an all-out war. Truman put us in Korea, went to extraordinary lengths to prevent Italy and Greece from going communist, and founded NATO. And as Joe Conason at Salon points out, whereas Coulter claims it was Republican congressional victories in 1947 that pushed Truman to take a hard anti-communist stands, the new Republican Congress was essentially isolationist and slashed defense spending by hundreds of millions of dollars. Finally there's Jimmy Carter, whose reputation as a wishy-washy peacenik persists today. In fact, he was the president who ended détente and initiated U.S. support for anti-communist forces in Nicaragua and Afghanistan.
Coulter would probably have had an easier job accusing our Republican Cold War presidents of treason. After all, it was a Republican who first invited a Soviet Premier to the US (Eisenhower), a Republican who initiated détente with the Soviets and recognized Communist China (Nixon), Republicans who signed almost every bilateral arms control agreements with the Soviets (Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr.).
As for her defense of Joe McCarthy, even David Horowitz, who publishes Coulter on his web site, couldn't stomach it. He sensibly and correctly observes that while there was some danger of communist infiltration of the government and the democratic party, Truman and his team of cold war liberals had effectively eliminated it; McCarthy's only achievement was to discredit anti-Communist efforts. Writes Horowitz, "It was the Truman Administration that prosecuted Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. In fact the decisive battles of this era took place _inside_ liberalism." But this is a reality Coulter's black-and-white worldview cannot accept.
Rating: 
Summary: Good but not Great
Review: ok i will agree with some of the elitist who have posted comments on amazon saying this is not an intelectual book and at times it is very crude and is reduced to name calling. Yes Mrs. coulter is very biased, yes she gets very childish when she calls the democrats names, and no the book is not written like a phylosphy book explaining the roots of liberalism. If you are an elitist or an distant inteltual this book is probaly not for you. But the truth is there are not that many elitist in this country and this book is written for the majority of the people who like this kind of book. I will be honest i did not agree totaly with Mrs. Coulters assumptions about liberals being treasonous. I believe there were some of them who were(Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, Alger Hiss, and even Jimmy Carter) But there were also some liberals who loved there country unconditionaly (Bill Moylihan, and Jeane Killpatrick). The sad part is most of the latter democrats i mentioned became republicans in the eighties when they realized that thew democratic party only standed for mcgovernite radicalism and was no longer a centralist party. This makes it more believable for mrs. coulters argument. I have not seen one democrat on tv lately that has really passed up an opurtunity to insult there own country, more then half of them voted against the amendment which would make it illeagal to burn the american flag. This says something to me and it should say something to americans. However treason is a heavy charge and some of the democrats might just not be pro american which is different from being treasonous. I wish mrs. coulter would have not genralized so much and would have not let her hatred get carried away. However this book does offer alot for the liberals that say this offers nothing new that is ridiculous, everything i learned about mccarthy in school was that he was a evil evil neo nazi like man. I am not saying he was a great perosn but i am saying at least some of Mrs. Coutlers arguments about McCarthy were true and he deserved to be reviewed and not treated him with such reviosinism which the left loves to do. There are many other facts in this book which are not covered in other areas. I am not saying that everything she said was totaly acurate, but most of what she said was and all that stuff is stuff most americans dont know about because of the lefts brainwashing scheme in education. That is why this book is important because there are facts in this book which people are not being teached and it is good for any student to read to counter the howard zinns that his teachers are forcing him to read because that is "real" history. I found it funny when libs wont even begin to think that maybe mccarthy was not as bad as he seemed. They just went off about how bad McCarthy was without any real reason other then he ruined peoples life. In this point mrs. coulter is totaly right, and most liberals are to hard headed to maybe review that some of the stuff the author said was true in this book. Instead they go out about how coulter is an extremist and this book is not real history because it is not what we were teached at school(which doesnt say much) and they would prefer to read there little us history revisionism texts instead by ultra liberals like gary nash and howard zinn. It is fine if you want to change history and rewrite it. But we also have a right to learn about the parts of history that your heroes do not include in there mein kamfs, and that is why this book is so important. It is fighting liberal brainwashing in text books which do have some truths, with conservative brainwashing which has some truths also. Hopefully after you read both you can get a more fair image of the us then some "historians" would want to give you.
Rating:
Summary: Just What Every Liberal Hates . . .
Review: A woman with a mind of her own and a completely victim-less perspective. Ann Coulter is brilliant and an amazing writer. Here she debunks the left's (anti-American) agenda and exposes them for the unscrupulous cads they are. She backs up her case with logical arguments and documented sources again and again and again. This is the sort of book they should use to teach high schoolers! Bravo, Ann!
| 
