Rating: 
Summary: Drivel...
Review: Read this rather long dissection of this distorted thesis. It's even more remarkable that there are those that would agree with her.homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/coulter.pdf
Rating: 
Summary: Shatters preconceived notions of McCarthy
Review: Coulter has once again written a book that reveals a vastly different and more accurate view of the McCarthy era than you will read in a textbook. With facts and humor, she points out how the media and left have twisted "history" into something totally different from what actually happened. Those knee-jerk reviewers (many of whom I would bet read very little of this book) are the same people who blindly follow their party's leaders no matter what. Although I don't agree that all liberals are traitors and she sometimes paints a too broad brush to that effect, the net result is an awesome and informative read.
Rating:
Summary: Manchurian Author
Review: Personally, I think Ann Coulter is a democrat spy. She does more damage to conservative causes than any liberal pundit could - reminds me of the early 60's movie, The Manchurian Candidate, the posited that McCarthy was a Soviet spy used to weaken US democracy. Its interesting that many thinking conservatives despise this book as much as liberals do (see Andrew Sullivan review, among others)
Rating:
Summary: Is there something wrong with her?
Review: Ann Coulter's "Treason" is without a doubt the most vitriolic, dishonest book that has ever recieved mainstream attention. Even Ron Radosh, a conservative researcher Coulter cites and praises at length called Coulter's book "ludicrous and historically inaccurate" and more eloquently: "crap." In the entire book she does not once mention Malmedy! During World War II, at the Battle of the Bulge in Malmedy, Belgium, 83 American prisoners of war were machine gunned by Germans in one of the worst war crimes of the war. When the war ended the U.S. government put on trial and convicted many of the Germans involved in this attrocity. The Germans had a loyal ally in Joe McCarthy. McCarthy defended the Nazis by emphatically claiming that the Nazis were being framed by the U.S. government and that the American soldiers had mistreated the Nazis. Joe McCarthy defended members of the worst regime in human histroy who also happened to slaughter 83 American soldiers. But that damning fact is beside the point. The main point is that Joe McCarthy criticized the U.S. government and American soliders in the most vitriolic, unconstructive manner and somehow Ann thinks Joe is a patriot, while at the same time liberals who criticize the government are all traitors. Is anyone else catching on that there might be something seriously wrong with Ann Coulter? It's amazing how she does not mention Malmedy once in her entire book when it was such an indispensable event in Joe's career. But that's how it goes with Ann. She goes cherrypicking for the conclusion she wants to come to and ignores anything that would contradict her conclusion. She accuses liberals of being traitors because many opposed the war with Iraq. But she doesn't mention that some of the most vocal and eloquent opposition to the war came from conservatives like Pat Buchanan. Is Buchanan a traitor? I don't know. Ann doesn't feel the need to bother us with a reasoned analysis. Then there was a section in the book where Ann calls Clinton's face fat, and I recall reading an article of hers where she said Hillary Clinton's ankles were fat. But in her book "Slander" I remember her saying something like "Only liberals can be so cruel as to make fun of how people look." I ask the question again, does anyone else realize there is something seriously wrong with this puppy? By the way I think Clinton is exceptionally handsome. However I could understand how someone with an eating disorder(like, say, anorexea) might believe Clinton was fat. Then later she says this: "Saddam Hussein was a madman developing weapons of mass destruction stewing in the same swamp as the 9-11 terrorists. We could beat him. Why were the Democrats against doing that? What do liberals want? Freud would have gone crazy with these people. Figuring out what women want is easy compared to liberals." Okay, like I mentioned, the most eloquent opposition to the war came from conservatives. But beside that, phrases like "We could beat him" and "rooting for America" betray the mentality of a child who has no comprehension of consequences. This is what the book is filled with. Also, about her invocation of Freud. I think it would be best if a bitter, vitriolic, 43-year-old, unmarried, childless woman would keep the mention of Dr. Freud as far away as possible. The bottom line is this. Ann Coulter thinks the world is a simple place. There is no such thing as complexity in the world she inhabits. Liberals are bad. Conservatives are good. Nazi-defending, career-ruining, aspiring politicians who are clinically insane are heroes. This is Ann's world. She's a mean spirited person. I don't say this about many people, but I will in this case, Ann Coulter is a terrible human being. I don't care what happened to her, nothing, not even midnight visits from daddy, could excuse her contempt towards the helpless.
Rating:
Summary: Avant-garde Watchdog Against Howls Of Narrow-minded Wolves!
Review: Ann Coulter has done it again, she found a subject dead and buried and brought it back to life in this book. The author using legitimate research makes a very compelling case against those judging McCarthy, Nixon, and Reagan with misinformation. She clearly and concisely cites how the Left-Wing Media Pundits practice the tactics of disorder by basking in bias and masking outright lies to attack political enemies in kind. I found her citations quite remarkable in both context and content focusing on the roots of truth. Few critics challenge her research so they resort to just personally bashing the author. A sure sign of hateful ignorance voiding scholarly rebuttals illustrating she touched a raw nerve of their prior truth decay. Ann Coulter's book gains creditability because of the failures of our Privateer Free Press in there own pursuit of anti-communist icons likes of McCarthy, Nixon, or Reagan. Ben Franklin believed, "A Free Press Means Anyone Can Publish The Truth Or Lies, But In The End The Truth Will Prevail Over The Falsehoods". Due to this book, the Liberal Pundits now have to defend their own sins of omissions of the past against the solid evidence of the facts as written by Ann Coulter. Where no one can criticize her, is the fact that Congressional Hearings on Communists did have a place in our society. Congress has investigated far less using the most flimsy excuses like the "October Surprise" (Allegations On Carter's Military Iranian Failure Totally Proven Baseless), or hearings on Nicaragua Contra Drug Running that were quickly abandon once the Drug Smuggling was traced to Castro's Communist Cuba funding their own Sandinistas'. The book points out Congress right and duty to investigate anything it considers protecting the public welfare. Despite what the author cites, McCarthy got himself by his failure to reflect on key evidence set up to bait him into making mistakes of judgments and wide accusations. But he was not wrong or evil for attempting to find the truth. McCarthy's failures were also the failure of the media at that time. On the other hand, Congress is within its powers to investigate Communists' political parties whose practice revolution by confusion first and force later among the masses. Few know that the Communist Party Elite that exerted control over 270 million Russians were never larger than 17 million members. The very word Bolshevik means minority and ruled Russia giving themselves privileges and wealth not consistent with Marxian goals of a classless society. Every single Communist government in history has the same Marxist Elite enslaving people not freeing them! At the same time, to be fair about it, many innocent Americans were convinced to join a party they never knew during the great depression. Often to gain a job or food and look into ways of changing a society that needed an economic change. Furthermore, during World War II the Communists were our Allies fighting Nazism and many Americans had to unfairly explain it after Russia continued its goal of world domination instead of creating real democracies. So, senator Joe McCarthy's task was not an easy one having to separate many innocent people who became temporary members of the communist party from the few real believers in Marxism as supported by Stalin's funding to add to the confusion at times of societal turmoil. The author's research lacks information on the organization known as, "THE TRUST" created by KGB Founder, Feliks Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, (Polish Native Not Russian), on orders from Lenin. Dzerzhinsky created "THE TRUST" for the very purpose of setting up a shell organization organized to overthrow Lenin's new government but always in command of Dzerzhinsky. This is how Lenin was able to learn who was opposing him secretly in and outside of Russia while spreading communism worldwide all with donated western funding. KGB Records already published now reveal that "THE TRUST" was meant to invite, watch, and neutralize anti-Bolshevik activity in Russia using western funding donated to overthrow the Bolsheviks. Plus, defuse foreign-based, anti-Soviet action by upsetting, embarrassing, and demoralizing foreign intelligence services. They use the tactic of discrediting anti-Bolshevik émigré groups as irrational by labeling them insecure and paranoid. "THE TRUST" other duties were to pressure foreign governments and enterprises to establish trade relations with the new Soviet state to bestow legitimacy on the new Soviet government by granting diplomatic recognition. Eventually it evolved into a propaganda disinformation organ to attack foreign governments from within to meet Communisms goals of worldwide revolutionary domination. From 1918, Bolshevik émigré groups were created in all democratic nations many claiming to be fleeing the Communist New Rulers but actually being controlled by Lenin's Dzerzhinsky. "THE TRUST" agents often took jobs in newspapers, magazines, and book publishers with the intent to influence by spreading ideas of social justice masking and protecting Marxists true goals. Furthermore, many of them were given funds to invest into the new media enterprises emerging in the 1920's such as Radio, Movie Making Studios, and eventually Television. They knew words and ideas are weapons to discredit people against them. Not just by attacking the leaders focusing on finding the truth, but by silencing them with omissions of the truth. "THE TRUST'" original accomplishments motivated each succeeding KGB chiefs to use it as a pattern for many later operations. The creation, in 1959, of the KGB's Department D of the First Chief Directorate (D for Deception), gave these operations a permanent bureaucratic home. Ms. Coulter needs to work on this subject showing the very deeps seeds of what senator McCarthy could not see through in the forest and trees meant to shadow vision and bent on discrediting people like him in the media. Based on reading other books, I feel this is how Communism became so popular and failed in the end because of it's own bankruptcy of true values of freedom, enterprise and individual rights and built on lies not proven truths. Abraham Lincoln once quoted the Bible by saying, "The Truth Crushed Into The Earth Will Only Rise Again!" Ann Coulter simply wrote another side to viewing McCarthyism under a more neutral basis. And those people who never cared for the Congressional Investigations are howling today over the barks of this Avant-garde Watchdog! I highly recommend this book but the author needs a prequel on the real seeds of the roots of her own findings and why I could only give it four stars!
Rating:
Summary: They Saved Hitler¿s Brain
Review: The target audience for this book, as its rabid title implies, is people who want to hate without any real justification for hating. The style and arguments of Treason, bear a remarkable resemblance to other hate manifestos written during the past century, especially by the guy with the funny little moustache. Instead of singling out a specific ethnic group or social class as treasonous and then demanding its annihilation, this one focuses on liberals. It's difficult to tell exactly what Coulter means by "liberals" since she does not really define the term but one can infer from her musings that a liberal is anyone who is not on board with the most narrowly racist, theocratic traditions of extremist white Christians in American History. The primary implication of this book is that if you oppose this strain of thought in any form then you are a traitor. The secondary implication of this book is that proponents of this type of thinking are perfect, sort of like God. In other words, if you don't worship this mode of thought along with its proponents then your existence is unwarranted. The thing that I find most disheartening about "Treason" is that the author clearly believes-and even counts on the possibility-that her readers are stupid. The book is filled with several hundred endnotes, which a cursory examination reveals to be distorted, inaccurate, and sometimes fictional. In his best seller, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", Al Franken and his research team examine every one of Coulter's endnotes and demonstrate their speciousness. Among Coulter's prevaricating techniques are: INVENTING A NEW CONTEXT FROM RANDOMLY SELECTED WORDS
She takes peoples' speech acts out of context. For example, she'll quote a book review in the New York Times as though the reviewer is representing the paper's official point of view rather than recapping an author's argument. It's as though one were to read this review of Ann Coulter's book and conclude that I am a fascist because my review contains the words "hate, liberals, treasonous, demand their" and "annihilation". Get it? She extracts words or phrases, removes them from context, and claims that the manner in which she has reassembled them represents a person's or publication's point of view. OVERLOADING SEARCH TOOLS TO ENSURE SHE WON'T FIND SOMETHING
When Coulter wants to claim that "liberal" publications reject stories of interest to mainstream America she overloads search tools such as LexisNexus and Google to ensure that she won't find what she's looking for. As anyone who uses these tools can tell you, the best way to find what you're looking for is to start out with the least number of words to generate the broadest search result. Coulter does the opposite in order to claim that published material has never been published. ATTRIBUTING STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS TO THE WRONG PERSON
Whether she is deliberately lying or is simply a flawed researcher, Coulter frequently attributes speeches and actions to the wrong individuals. In one instance, Franken proved this merely by calling these people and asking them, "hay is it true that you [or your relative] did the following..." Um, no she's confused us with someone else. INVENTING A NEW REALITY
Coulter often claims that the press, particularly the Washington Post and the New York Times have a liberal bias. Researchers such as Robert McChesney, and Noam Chomsky long ago demonstrated that practically all of the press, including those two publications, is owned by the same six conglomerates that dictate content largely on the basis of their bottom line profit. Franken goes one step further by demonstrating with specific examples how the "liberal" press is all too willing to bash liberals and how conservative media outlets have broadcast some of the stories that she finds so unbearably left-wing. The press, as Christopher Hedges demonstrates in his best seller, "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" voluntarily supports the interests of state, especially in times of war. Hardly a liberal bias there. SELECTIVE IGNORANCE.
Coulter claims that all liberals are treasonous and hate America. Franken demonstrates the absurdity of this by pointing to many patriotic liberals who have put their lives on the line for America including former fighter pilot, astronaut, and democratic senator John Glen-a man who Franken jokes must have hated risking his life and winning all those medals for America. Even if you don't like Al Franken or his politics, it is impossible to refute his evidence that Anne Coulter lies in this book and that she thinks her readers are too stupid to realize this. The sad part about this is that there are a lot of legitimate conservative arguments in public discourse today as well as many intelligent conservative writers such as Alan Bloom, Francis Fukuyama, and Samuel Huntington, to name a few. But Coulter implicitly rejects intelligent conservatism and intelligent conservatives and instead argues, that her readers should let her do all of the thinking and hate generating for them. If you are a fan of this book and you don't have time to check its facts, at least bring it up with an intelligent conservative or moderate person in your community-particularly one who studies history--and see what that person thinks. It's great to have political passions and to express them in a persuasive manner, but you shouldn't have to lie or make a fool of your readers to accomplish this.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't believe everything you hear about McCarthy.
Review: Elites from the left regularly condemn America with samplings of false accusations from the revolutionary's playbook. The most common charges are never true of America yet they are always true of the Marxists governments to which the Left gives succor. When critics charge that Leftist elites are Marxists utopians struggling to destroy America's political and social structures, the left always, always, always, plays the "McCarthy Card." Once the card is in play, like a pheromone, it triggers a visceral defense in the elite media which ensures that the questions will never be answered. This book begins the process of separating myth from fact and setting the record straight regarding Senator McCarthy's mission and character. Coulter turns scrutiny's spotlight around and aims it at the false witnesses and lying press who birthed the myth which personifies McCarthy as evil incarnate. When that "McCarthy Card" is played, evil does become incarnate. What do good American's do when confronted with evil? They dispatch it! So much for the Left's critics.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining.
Review: Coulter is entertaining to read, especially if you agree with her. She writes with energy and attitude. I prefer her kind of charged writing than some boring book that's politically correct.
Rating:
Summary: The book that would please Rush Limbaugh but has no truth.
Review: Any 'thinking' person would not be fooled by Coulter's poor arguments. For those who want understanding, I will offer a counter argument that has far more truth to it:
During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980(Reagan era), CIA showered Afghans and other arab fighters(Bin Laden inclusive)with many weapons including anti-aircraft missiles to fight the Russians. Back then, Reagan admin considered anyone who fought the Russians(aka 'freedom fighters' to Reagan admin)as our friends-never mind if they were fighting for democracy, just fight the Russians. Well when the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, vast civil unrest and tribal war broke out in Afghanistan. Was helping Afghans to fight the Russians important to Reagan admin? You bet. Was helping Afghans to establish democracy after Russians withdrew? You tell me. For the next 20 years, Afghanistan would be the haven for terrorists training camps. Today we face a different kind war. These terrorists groups have no national boundaries and they operate all over the world. We need internationl co-ordination to cope with new danger we face today. Well, Bush admin defied UN integrity, alienated our allies, and stirred more hatred among these extreme groups. And there has not been a shred of evidence that Iraq had WMD. If there is a new attack on us, it won't be missiles flying from some rogue nation, it will be terrorists smuggling WMD( yes including suitcase nukes) into the country. Mr Bush has made it all the more difficult to fight this growing grim threat. And I sure don't have enough condifience in unilateral intelligence of US-same that failed to prevent 9-11, same that had grossly false info on Iraq- to stop it. It's time to pray.
Rating:
Summary: Some things never change
Review: The book begins with Joseph McCarthy holding hearings to discover why known Soviet agents are working in sensitive US military positions. McCarthy couldn't care less about communists in Hollywood or any other private lifestyle. Ann Coulter documents how government officials from Roosevelt and Truman on down knew about Soviet infiltration but would do worse than nothing: they retained these agents as their closest advisors while the accusers (Whittaker Chambers, for example) were pilloried before the nation. To measure the real damage of McCarthy vs. the contrived "McCarthyism," Coulter juxtaposes the actual deaths of millions under communism with concern that a few people graced with living in the US may have had to choose a new career, or worse, hang out by their own choice in the night clubs of Europe with "trendy" people. Check the facts yourself. The endnotes are there to confirm or dispute a pattern of liberal behavior that closely resembles political events that we continue to see today. If you are a skeptic, you can do the research. If you are a lazy skeptic, you can argue that the information is not available to mere mortal researchers. There's a sub-theme to the book and much a part of Ann's public discourse - when liberals are faced with facts, they will not just change the subject. They will attack the messenger. Not every fact is documented in this manner, and in some cases truth is hard to distinguish from shameless hyperbole. But don't be fooled. When, for example, Ann says that that novelist, poet, and film critic James Agee denounced atrocity films of Hitler's death camps as a hoax, the reference to the source material is in the endnotes. But there is no endnote to the subsequent remark that the Harvard Graduate School of Education now has a James Agee chair of Social Ethics. While this might be assumed to be a sarcastic embellishment by Ann, just the same, there is such a position. She just shows that anyone who does some small amount of honest research will become familiar with liberal patterns to the point that a certificate of authenticity is not always needed. Ann's technique can be used to analyze any liberal counterargument and, for that matter, actually classify a counterargument as "liberal." In McCarthy's case, Ann may suggest asking "Yes, but were there 205 identified security risks (or was it 57 communists?) working for the State Department?" in response to the assertion, by the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun, that McCarthy was a "disreputable pervert." Okay, so how about asking "Yes, but did Saddam Hussein pose a threat to our national security through terrorism or any other means?" in response to the assertion that George W. Bush lied when he said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Some things never change.
| 
