Rating: 
Summary: Right on the mark
Review: No wonder liberals turn blue when Ms. Coulter's name is mentioned. She tells it like it is and backs up her statements with facts. A must read for anyone who wants to know the truth and not the fabrications that have been fed to the American people by the liberal media and academia.
Rating:
Summary: Treason demolishes the liberals' mythology
Review: Once again, Ms. Coulter has gone where no man dare to thread. In this well research book, Ms. Coulter (the liberal's slayer) has put forward the true measure of the duplicity ingrained in the liberal's ideology. She proves it by using their own words, statements, and behavior. Yes, Senator Joseph McCarthy wanted to stop the Soviet infiltration of our government going back to the liberal's "god" Franklin D. Roosevelt. Yes, Richard Nixon was hated to death because he exposed the Soviet spy Alger Hiss, the liberal's darling. Yes, Ronald W. Reagan was the architect and the Soviet's destroyer, the only president who rolled back the evil and mighty Soviet empire, even when opposed furiously by the liberal democrats. These three men did more to defend America than all the liberal democrats put together in the last 58 years. These are all facts that anyone with a fair mind can not deny. Today, in the war against terrorism the same cabal's contribution is to bite at the anckle of President George W. Bush, who has contributed more to the national security of this great nation in 2 years than his predecessor did in 8 years. Ms. Coulter deserves the Medal of Freedom for her untiring crusade against the myth creator of the left.
Rating: 
Summary: I can't believe this passes for intellectual work
Review: Where to begin--should I start with the inaccuracies, the bad scholarship, the misinterpretations of history, the mindblowing intellectual vacuity of the text? Or should I just start by saying that, true to form, Coulter proves herself to be rabidly misinformed?Anyone who's ever written an academic text knows that the strength of your argument rests in the quality of your original research (not the number of footnotes--any grad student can pad their research) and your research methodology. Apparently, Coulter's methodology is the pick and choose variety--state a conclusion and then find the 'evidence' to back you up. (Joe Conason has an excellent review on Salon listing just a few of the PROVEN inaccuracies in this book.) Nevermind her overdetermined argument that dissent is 'treason' which just comes off as hysteria; the fact that she actually tries to build a case to recover Joseph McCarthy is ... stunning. Her basic premise that McCarthy was destroyed by the left and the communists, blah blah blah--wrong. He was brought down by his own party and the Army. And why did the Army successfully bring him down? He gave comfort and aid to our enemies -- Nazis. Hm. She sorta skips that part of history. Don't believe me? Check her sources. Read the original sources for yourself. She's not an intellectual. She's not a historian. She's not even a good writer. If I had tried to push through a piece of bad scholarship like this in grad school, I never would have gotten my degree.
Rating:
Summary: A Major Disservice to America
Review: It's fortunate for Ann Coulter that publishers don't hold their non-fiction books up to the higher standards that she believes conservatives live by, if they did books like "Treason" would never get published. The reason why: this book is full of lies and misleading information. I admit that Coulter is a decent writer in that her style invokes a persuasive argument, it's just that her argument is full of holes, taking immense liberties with facts and flat out lying in some instances. For example, Coulter offers this quotation from Clinton: "Bill Clinton, the man who deployed the best fighting force on the globe to build urinals in Bosnia, actually said of Muslim terrorists, 'They have good reason to hate us...after all, we sent the Crusaders to try and conquer them.'" (p.229) Coulter, conveniently, forgets to footnote this quote....Probably because Clinton never said this, according to a thorough search of news databases, nor do any other sources repeat this quotation. One of the main issues that the book centers around is the attack on Senator McCarthy. Of course, McCarthy was right in going after the TRUE spies. But what about the other people he demonized and destroyed their lives in the name of his witch hunt. This was the true reason why McCarthy was attacked; not because of the real spies, but because of the innocent people whose lives he destroyed. Of course, Coulter conveniently doesn't touch on this issue in her book. These are only two examples of Coulter's broad assertions and giant leaps of logic, there are many more in this hate filled book. But the essence of the book is to say that criticizing the US or US policy is equivalent to hoping for it's defeat and therefore "treason". Of course she doesn't bother to discuss the numerous times that Republicans have questioned US policy. I keep seeing a lot of 4 and 5 star reviewers talk about her extensive documentation and footnotes. But did you people even look into these references? Quick checks of several of the so-called footnotes are found to be false, misquoted and misleading. There are already tons of articles to be found that fully refute many of her so-called facts. Don't believe me? Then search for yourself; go to the library use one of many online search engines. You'll quickly find that many of her so-called facts are not so!! For someone that makes a living on calling other people liars, she's got a lot of nerve. Coulter even has the nerve to cite this quote from the historian Paul Johnson: "Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones." (p. 292) Maybe Ms. Coulter should look up the meaning of hypocrisy before she writes her next book. With the exception of those on the right that seem to think Coulter is a genius, I have a feeling that most intelligent people will see this book for what it is, a bunch of childish name calling in an attempt to discredit every person that leans, even slightly to the left of center. "Treason" is nothing more than a hate filled mantra in an attempt to destroy political discourse and give the Republicans the final word. This continuity audacity, by both parties, to take an "everything we do is good and everything they do is evil" attitude is destroying political discourse and slowing destroying our country. One of the easiest things we can all do to put a stop to this is to stop buying books like this one!!
Rating:
Summary: Use it to balance the uneven leg of the coffee table
Review: This book is sad, depressing even to the normal reader, it appeals only to the basest of human fears and mistrust. The work is pure fiction, spawned from a warped interpretation of actual facts. It's appeal lies only to the stauntest of republicans, who in their narrow focus can only see the smallest of truths that lay within the greater picture. Rather like someone looking too closely and not stepping back to view the overall image, the author only states what her narrow vision allows - that all liberals, and thusly, democrats are responsible for everything bad that ever happened in the world. If that is true, explain George Bush and Son. I believe in freedom of speech, and she is allowed her view on the subject, but was it worth the money I paid? No. Her book left me sad. Sad for her, sad for the readers that believe her and sad that someone so narrow minded can live such an untrusting, and obviously unhappy life.
Rating:
Summary: Coulter Outdoes Herself - More Shrill, Less Truth
Review: Ms Coulter's last book spawned a massive Internet industry documenting her literally dozens and dozens of errors and untruths. Amazingly, she outdoes herself here, and will clearly keep people busy for weeks finding ever more errors and lies.
At a minimum, she is incredibly selective in her fingerpointing and claims of "treason" (a very serious legal charge she loves to throw at people like others use "stupid" or "bimbo"). Example: Pat Buchanan is a hero during the Reagan years (baiting liberals re: Soviets), but is unmentioned in more modern times. Why? Perhaps because he was anti-Iraq war, and admitting a right-winger could hold such a position makes it clear a conservative could be (in her reality) "traitors"! Same for the conservative Cato Institute. And look at her spirit guide, Joe McCarthy! She tells us glowing stories of his youth and later years, but fails to mention his first claim to fame was as a supporter of Waffen SS Officers, convicted of war crimes (massacre of US soldiers at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge). At the urging of wealthy home-state German-Americans (who had been pro-Hitler prior to WWII), he accused the US Army of torturing confessions from SS soldiers and claimed there had never been such a massacre. Again, under her version of reality, doesn't this qualify McCarthy for the "traitor" charge? Try to imagine her screeching should a liberal today accuse the US Army of torturing Iraqis and falsifying civilian massacres to protect Saddam?
As for those who bring up the recently opened Soviet archives, note how carefully she does NOT mention Ted Kaghan. Kaghan was a target of McCarthy's who worked for VOA in Berlin post WWII. Because of pressure from McCarthy, VOA fired him and his career was ruined. Or Owen Lattimore, who she does mention as a "top espionage agent for Stalin". The unearthed KGB records she proudly presents as proof of Soviet agents at work in America contain nothing on either of these men (which doesn't prevent her from continuing McCarthy's accusations of guilt, devoid of any evidence).
Finally, for those who claim she documents Republicans standing up to Communism, and Democrats giving in or bringing down McCarthy, note how she fails to mention McCarthy didn't go down until he was censured by Republicans (including, and of course she never mentions this, Dubya's grandfather Prescott Bush, Senator from Connecticut). Or that Democratic President Truman had to fight and plead with Republicans in Congress in 1947 in order to oppose Communist (and Soviet) expansion into Turkey and Greece, or that the Republicans cut military spending $500 million, almost crippling German/Japanese occupations, or BEFORE the GOP regains congressional control in 1946, Truman had the US Med Fleet stand up to the Soviet Navy, almost to a shooting war. How could she mention these items? Under her reality, the GOP were traitors and Democrats would be heros!
Rating:
Summary: Some of these reviews,,,,,
Review: I actually laughed out loud at some of the reviews on here. "Poorly written"? "written on a third grade level"? I would love for a couple of you so called intellects to go head to head with Ms. Coulter. This book is smart,wickedly hilarious, and down right thought provoking. Ms. Coulter never fails to entertain and enlighten. That biting wit and uber intelligence scares the hell out of the liberal bumpkins. The lady is unstoppable. Another A+++
Rating: 
Summary: more of the same
Review: For far-right folks, this book will most likely be an entertaining what-she-said-right-on orgy. For those with more centrist views or those of a liberal persuasion, it's better not to poke this particular hornets' nest.
Rating:
Summary: Great Read
Review: It is truly amazing how many liberals and quasi-socialist read this book. Ann Coulter is the liberals worst nightmare - they hate America and she knows it, and writes a book about them.
Rating:
Summary: a masterpiece of historical revisionism
Review: in response to Daniel Lowenberg's review: yes, indeed Ms. Coulter's book _is_ "marvelously footnoted" but if you took the time to actually look at the sources she cites it would soon become apparent how she twists and distorts historical facts to suit her own narrow view of the world. Does she mention McCarthy's 1949 campaign on behalf of Nazi S.S. officers who were convicted of war crimes for the massacre of American troops in the town of Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge? No? Hmm... I wonder why?
|
