Rating: 
Summary: who's the traitor?
Review: What Ann Coulter is doing in this book and others she has written is to use lies and distortions to cause Americans to hate each other, thereby weakening our country in a time of war against terrorism. What could be more traitorous than that?
Rating: 
Summary: Liberals might get confused by the facts in this book.
Review: Take a close look at the negative reviews for this book. Most of the people obviously haven't even read it. All of their reviews are filled with the usual emotional language and name calling of the left, Ann Coulter gets all these reviews because her punches land accurately on the heart of liberalism. These negative reviews are the sputtering of a rudderless, fact-less ideology.Compare the insult loaded, negative reviews with Ann's detailed Appendix referenced to source documents. Most leftist works are referenced to other leftist works. Does she let some emotion into the mix. You betcha! There is plenty of emotion to have after decades of America bashing and needless damage brought on by "thinkers" in love with Marxism and their myrmidons in love with the idea of following the easiest sounding, spoon-fed solutions. "You mean, I get something for doing nothing. I'll vote for that!" "You mean, life actually IS fair. Ok, sign me up!" Wake up Democrats and lefties! Socialism is the roadmap to the destruction of civilization. Hang in there Ann, They don' t think. They don't even read. They just hate.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Buy!!
Review: This is a fantastic book. I normally don't like to read, but I enjoy reading this book. It is filled with factual information. It is written very well.
Rating: 
Summary: Distortion and Propaganda
Review: With "Treason," Ann Coulter, a conservative, set out to write a book that attacks and lambasts liberals. She is an author who despises liberals, is not a liberal herself, and writes a book with a specific agenda of proving liberals' treasonous qualities. For this reason alone, "Treason" can not be read as a work of "true" or unbiased journalism. Additionally, in literally hundreds of instances throughout the book, the author's own personal opinions come out in ways that are unsubstantiated, exaggerated, and specious. In "Treason", Ann Coulter will present a string of purported historical facts, and then promptly follow them with a blanket statement about "all liberals" that those facts simply do not support. Statements such as "Liberals Lie," "Leftists Monkeys think...", et cetera. At those points, the author is stating a distortion, and because she is saying it after a long series of facts, an uneducated reader might take it to be a fact, when it is merely the author's unsubstantiated opinion. This mixture of fact and distortion with the intention to persuade is the actual, literary definition of propaganda. For this reason, it is frightening that "Treason" is a bestseller- not because the book is anti-liberal, but because the methods the author employs are such pure and unapologetic propaganda.
All caring Americans, and particularly "liberals" should read this book to understand how deep the distortion of the far right wing really runs. The fact that "Treason" is a bestseller, and has made this author a millionaire should give all Americans pause that propaganda rides again as a dangerous and hate-filled threat.
Rating:
Summary: Horatio Alger Meets Barbara Cartland
Review: The writer of "Dragonstongue" and "The Sun and the Cow; The Rebirth of the Conservative Female Consciousness" has jumped over her own literary shadow to bring her fans a historical fantasy steeped in political overtones. The story starts in 2001, when a bulemic middle aged writer asked herself a question: "what if Joe McCarthy was right?" This very question reverses physics, mathematics, and even fashion, to provide her with the brush to paint a new world. Join Ann on this romp through 20th century history seen through the looking glass!
Rating: 
Summary: Vietnam
Review: I will point out right now that I have not read Treason(Which is the reason I've given it an average review). I have, however, read excerpts from it that suggest I would not like it, nor agree with it. I've read some of the chapter entitled, "Vietnam: Oh How They Miss Saigon". She attempts to prove that Johnson apparently single-handedly lost Vietnam, and all we learned from that war is that Democrats lose wars. I, being a staunch liberal, do not believe the war was lost by any one president. Vietnam was America's thirty years war, and was the result of the diplomacy of five US presidents. I also believe that Reagen did not single-handedly win the Cold War as the success was more or less the result of the combined efforts of the presidents that led the nation of that 45 year time period. Until I read the book, I will not say that it is awful (as others who haven't read the book have said), however I will say I don't like Coulter, having read her column on anncoulter.org. If you are a democrat or a liberal, I will not recommend this book, because it would probably be atagonizing to be told how crazy you are and how much you hate this country for such an extended time.
Rating:
Summary: Major intellectual for the intellectually lazy
Review: Is Ann Coulter a shameless liar or simply one of the worst researchers on the planet? I know that most people think she is just an angry fascist and lying is as natural as breathing to her. However, I wish to make the case that, while her opinions are fueled by enmity, spite, and fire-breathing rage, the insipid character of her books is largely the product of poor research skills. Others have certainly exposed her legendary "footnote" chicanery and her outrageous disrespect for context, but what if she just didn't know any better? I can only suppose that when angry Ann pinches off a thought (anti-thought?) that she does honestly want to support it. She simply lacks any vague notion for how to do that. Perhaps she sits at her computer and does a Nexus search for exactly the words she wants to put in the mouth of her straw men. Then, she slips the quote into her argument without thinking to actually read the source. And does the quality of a source matter to Ann? If you quote a liar, does that make you a liar, or just lazy? Let's pretend that Ann is just lazy. Using Reed Irvine or any of a litany of lunatic right-wing tools as a source of information is always a dangerous tactic. When you turn over what seems to be your entire research process to them, that's criminally lazy. While the "footnotes" may not reference such sources directly, almost all of them are sourcing their sources. When a news story breaks and is then recanted, why would anyone continue to report the original story as fact? Again, maybe someone was just not aware that the story had been recanted. Lazy? While I leave to others the unenviable task of unravelling the extent of Coulter's soft research (call it pathological lying if you will), I offer one example. In Treason, Coulter dredges from the archives of the Irvine outhouse the story that legendary maverick reporter I.F. Stone had been a paid spy of the Soviet Union. She doesn't mention that, at best, the alleged "payments" were in the form of a periodic free lunch. Nor does she mention that this story had been thoroughly debunked not long after it began circulating in the right-wing media. A decent researcher might look into the original story (from questionable sources) and say, "Gee, he's a KGB spy and the best he has to show for it is a handful of sandwiches? What's going on here?" A decent researcher might even look into follow-up stories, you know, the ones that say 'Hey, we got it wrong.' Even a third-rate researcher might know enough to look into the original source, even contact the original reporter. Ann did none of these things. Instead you'll find in her book the assertion that I.F. Stone was a confirmed KGB spy. She even has "footnotes" to back it up. But what does she care, it's not like I.F. Stone can rise from the grave and sue her. Many of Ann's faithful, and lazy, supporters point to her quantity of "reasearch" and think that they represent "facts". Some may say that Ann is a liar who quotes, and misquotes, other liars. But I say she is simply a slacker, and those who believe her the most intellectually lazy gobs of goo to ever achieve literacy--presuming they have.
Rating:
Summary: One man's treason is another man's patriotism.
Review: Treason...? You decide..... "Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
George Herbert Walker Bush, from his memoir, A World Transformed (1998)
Rating:
Summary: Ann's latest book rocks!
Review: Ann's latest book "Treason" is far superior to her last book "Slander". As with all of her books, you'd better have a dictionary handy while reading it.
Rating:
Summary: shrill, unproductive, anti-democratic
Review: All I can say is, if Anne Coulter had been in Philadelphia in 1776, we would never have a constitution or a declaration. Personally, I have no problems with conservatives. Some of them are very nice people. heck, I'm even related to a few! In this country, we are founded on principles of tolerance and compromise. Our founders had many differences of opinion, but they stuck it out and found solutions to their disagreements. That is my problem with Coulter and Limbaugh and Savage. They don't listen. They don't debate. They construct their own boogey-liberals and then proceed to rip them apart, without ever engaging in a real discussion. Civility is an essential civic virtue, and it's people like Anne Coulter who degrade public discourse until all we do is yell at each other and nobody listens. Please don't put money in this woman's pocket. She doesn't love this country. Could she try to make a hero of Joseph McCarthy if she did?
|
