Rating: 
Summary: As a liberal
Review: I find this book to be a direct threat on my life. Treason is punishable by death and/or life imprisonment. If she can go around on a witch hunt such as this and have a following, I worry about the future of our country and the world. No wonder she is an apologist for McCarthyism, she wants to be the next one to point out the "reds under your beds". Do people ever learn? Here vision of history is completely skewed. Go take a course in recent American history to learn what was happening.
Rating: 
Summary: Great, Great, Book!
Review: I read all these reviews critizing this book as not well researched. Not true. It is very well researched with sources referenced on just about every page.For a polical book, it is extremely entertaining. Buy it!!!
Rating:
Summary: This book made the vein in my neck throb
Review: Before reading this book I had never given serious thought to Ann Coulter. I had heard of her other two books and simply dismissed both as nothing more then simple right wing clap trap. I don't buy in to her arguments and I don't buy into the arguments of left wing radicals like Michael Moore. What appalls me about this book is the fact that she is attempting to write history. Ms. Coulter claims that her book is exposing the truth about the Cold War and the War on Terror, but in fact she simply has ended up getting bogged down in her own right wing propaganda. Let me pause for a moment and say that I fully understand this book was written for a select group of people, what concerns me is the possibility that someone with no opinion on the events she describes is going to pick up Treason and read it as the truth. First of all Ms. Coulter tells everyone that her facts are solid and all her statements are backed up by extensive research. This could not be further from the truth. This has been established by several people, including Brendan Nyhan who recently wrote an excellent piece on Treason. Several of the people who gave this book 5 stars stated that no on was providing any errors from her writing. Well alright here are a few examples: "Truman's undersecretary of state, Sumner Welles, defended Duggan." (p. 47) Welles in fact had served as Roosevelt's undersecretary of state and had been forced out of office by Cordell Hull in 1945. On p. 84 Coulter refers to George C. Marshall as Truman's ambassador to China. In fact he only served as his personal envoy for a fact finding mission regarding the Nationalist government. Two other men (Patrick J. Hurley and J. Leighton Stuart) served during this period. On p. 148 she writes, "Immediately after Churchill's speech, Truman instructed his secretary of state Dean Acheson..." The speech is the Iron Curtain speech which took place in 1946, Acheson did not become secretary of state until 1949. On p. 151 she writes, "His [MacArthur's] troops swept north, eventually crossing the Yalu River..." I hate to break it to Ms. Coulter but US troops never crossed the Yalu River during the Korean War, we only approached it. If we had we would have been in China. Those are just a few examples of some basic facts she screwed up. Her description of the Marshall Plan debate is ludicrous. By reading her one would think that if wasn't for those Congressional Republicans their never would have been a Marshall Plan. In fact it took a tremendous about a prodding to force the still largely isolationist Republicans to take any action at all. She also makes the point that the plan presented by the Truman administration included no funding for Greece or Turkey. In fact the plan was originally conceived as a way of assuming responsibility from the British for those two particular areas. For a more accurate description I would direct people to Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson's book The Wise Men. In her chapter on the Korean War one would think that MacArthur was this god like man who was forced out by scheming Truman cronies. Please, MacArthur had his brilliant moments, but he was insubordinate and that he could disobey the commander-in-chief. She also makes the point that do to Dean Acheson's January 1950 speech in which he publicly placed South Korea outside of our defensive zone the North Koreans felt emboldened to invade. In fact if she bothered to check the facts that speech was made after MacArthur had made the same conclusions, which he reported to the administration. Check out Geoffrey Perret's biography of MacArthur. Additionally, the North Koreans had made the decision long before January 1950, checkout the recent research on that aspect of the Korean War. There is much more that I could address (Vietnam, Reagan, etc.) but I feel these were some good examples of the lack of research she did. Check out her sources, she does not use any primary sources, which is what real scholarly work is built upon. Ms. Coulter instead relies upon editorials, newspaper articles, and other people's work. Truthfully it seems that Ms. Coulter's entire problem with the Democratic Party is her belief that it has been dominated by upper-class WASPs who would do anything to protect one of their own. I had thought that this had finally ended when Richard Nixon died, who loved to yell about the Eastern Establishment. Ms. Coulter devotes entire paragraphs on how the WASPs loved treason and hated their country. Stop complaining, she thinks liberals whine. Get over it, so you didn't go to a boarding school and you didn't go to Harvard or Yale or Princeton. Big deal. Speaking as someone who has been described as a WASP before, I say knock off it's really quite old now. I would point out to Ms. Coulter that the "Eastern Establishment" despite a few notable examples was fairly strongly conservative for quite a few years. That's a fact. In the end the fact that one of the people Ms. Coulter uses to back up her work has recently dismissed her work as garbage is most telling. Ronald Radosh, who is described by Coulter as a pre-eminent historian, recently said, "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...I thin kit is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing [this stuff]." Radosh is referring to Coulter's treatment of the McCarthy period. You know what many of those were in fact spies, I know that and that's what the new information tells us. But it does not excuse McCarthy for his behavior, which was abominable. In the end please, for god's sake, do not read Treason as history. It is clearly not.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent book! Ann Coulter fries the pathetic left again!
Review: Lets face it, the left hate America. They always have.
Not only that, the American left wing extremists have always had more loyalty to America-hating Europeans and corrupt European regimes like France and the ex-Soviet Union than to America.
Just have a read of the vicious anti-American column by William Pfaff in the New York Times owned International Herald Tribune last week, to see how evil the left in America really is.
Lets face it, the New York Times and the left wing establishment press in America (most of the press) do more to stir up anti-American hatred in the world than even Al Quaeda does.
Like the America hating New York Times, if the left is not actively stirring up anti-American propaganda, they are making things up (think Jason Blair).
Evil left wing clowns at the New York Times, are at least partly responsible for example for the 7 million Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin, because the America hating, British born, New york Times reporter in Moscow, Walter Durante, kept writing fiction in the New York Times that there was no starvation going on in the Soviet Union at all! Ann Coulter's devastating expose of the true evil nature of the left in America shows how the left in America have been working to destroy everything that is good about America, and how they have been undermining and sabotaging American security and the American economy for as long as anyone can remember.
This book is a must read for every clear thinking America. The forces for good in America must rise and actively expose the nefarious activities of the left and do everything to smash the hateful left in America.
Ann Coulter is a true patriot, whose contribution to making America strong must be applauded by everyone who loves this country.
Every clear thinking American should buy this excellent book!
Rating:
Summary: Open a history book people
Review: Please. Or at least check on these sources Ann Coulter used. You will learn that she has been force feeding you distortions, half-truths and blatant lies. I'm not talking about stuff that's open to interpretation here- I'm talking about factual errors!
Rating:
Summary: Revisionist Tabloid History for the Historically Ignorant
Review: Ann Coulter does have a knack for dredging up relatively obscure facts to buttress her arguments, but she completely twists them to the point where her thesis becomes absurd and frightening. For instance, she claims that Hoover was a champion of Japanese-Americans during the hey days of internment in WWII, while "liberals" like FDR were trampling on civil rights. Although, Hoover stated that the mass removal of Japanese-Americans was based on public hysteria, he did so because he felt that the FBI had already rounded up "Japanese miscreants" and that he had done his job as to the perceived threat of Japanese American misloyalties. Thus, Hoover's opposition to internment wasn't a championing of their civil rights; it was merely frustration that the primacy of the FBI was being challenged. In any case, Hoover had no problems in physically seizing personal property of Japanese Americans even before Earl Warren ordered mass internment and his rabid dislike of Asians was well known. In comparison, the ACLU (those liberals Coulter and her rabid lot hate the most) fought the internment policies in the courts and those outlets of the press that were not owned by the shamefule racist elements of society that Coulter appears to find so attractive. In any case, why does Coulter even care about mass internment of ethnic minorities? The truth is, she does not. She merely uses these factoids to sing paeans to her fallen idols( frankly, I'm surprised that she didn't put Lester Maddox on her pantheon of political Gods). It is this total disregard for the truth and for real historical analysis that puts Ann's books right up there with Archie Comic books in the political history department. Unfortunately, her tabloid version of 20th Century American history has its fawning fans because most Americans are at a loss when it comes to their own history (something that Ann and I can agree on).
Rating: 
Summary: the matrix
Review: the left vs right deal is really just a way to enslave people, a game , a distraction. coulter is merely playing her part and makin' some solid dough. the one thing all those who's livelihood is derived from the rightvsleft scam must at all costs discredit, scorn or better yet pretend doesnt exist is the libertarian option(or any other option for that matter). Does Coulter know exactly what shes doing? No, she probably actually believes in conservativism. Carrol Quigley(rhodes scholar, teenage harvard PHD, voted Georgetowns "most influencial prof" 20 yrs in a row, Clintons mentor) best explains the scam in "Tragedy and Hope". But our power elites have changed gears and this stage will be drastically different from the last (ie Coulter might want to heed the warning sounded in the elites manifesto written by Solomon Tulbure)
Rating:
Summary: A must read for every thinking person!
Review: Ann Coulter provides a well documented, compelling and liberating study of the events (and the spin) that has shaped our collective view of the world today. I plead guilty to having been among those who marched to the beat of polical correctness - and to ignorantly buying into the "conventional wisdom" of the last 50 years. Ann not only blasts the prevailing myths to smithereens, she also puts a laser beam on the dangers we face ahead. BRAVO!
Rating:
Summary: mediocre; best for people too lazy to think for themselves
Review: There are people on both sides of the politicial spectrum who write intelligently and cogently (whether or not you agree with them) and back up their arguments with reliable evidence. Ms Coulter is not one of them. Many of her assertions are verifiably untrue, and I sincerely hope that readers will consider the source before unthinkingly accepting them. Anyone who truly wants to have an educated view about an issue owes it to himself to think critically about what he's reading. This book seems directed at people who already feel angry and threatened -- people who think that being patriotic means that anyone who disagrees with them is unpatriotic, people who think the Bill of Rights consists only of the right to bear arms, people who resent the idea of political correctness because they don't want to be ashamed of being bigots. If you are one of these people, you will find this book reassuring, because it will make you feel justified in your anger. Ms. Coulter has a gift for writing in a persuasive, passionate way. And she obviously feels strongly about her opinions. But it would be a mistake to view this book as anything other than politically motivated. I don't mean this as a criticism -- everyone should be free to assert political or social opinions. But I'd caution readers against accepting any such statements at face value. I'd also hope that readers are intelligent enough to understand that just because a book has footnotes doesn't mean it's well-supported -- that you have to consider the source of the information.
Rating:
Summary: All of your sources are incorrect
Review: I was interested in what Ms. Coulter had to say this time around. Again, she has proven to be a master of fiction. Her sources are highly questionable. If she didn't come across as so angry, her arguments might actually sound more palatable. Do not waste your time on this book.
| 
