I Agree With Ann Coulter

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 9, 2003

As might have been expected, Ann Coulter has created a firestorm with her sensational new best-selling book, “Treason – Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.”

Naturally, liberals and Democrats – pretty much the same thing – are infuriated at being indicted as a class of dedicated anti-Americans who, beginning with the Cold War, found much to be admired in the international communist conspiracy and much to be hated in their own United States of America.

Unexpected has been the reaction of such conservatives as Andrew Sullivan who are offended by Ann’s no-holds-barred polemical style and appear to have been infected by the anti-Joe McCarthy virus.

In “Treason” Coulter tells us that everything we know about Joe McCarthy is a lie. She lays out the evidence for this assertion but her critics ignore it. It is, to them, an article of faith that Joe was the devil incarnate, and no one can be allowed to shatter that illusion.

“The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times,” she wrote. “Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren’t hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation’s ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy’s name.”

It is claimed that McCarthy was wrong in claiming that there was a plague of Communist subversion afflicting the government. Release of the Venona intercepts and other documents concerning the extent of communist subversion disproved that lie.

It is claimed that Joe McCarthy persecuted innocent people and that Americans trembled in fear that they would be caught up in Joe’s net, but the record shows that no such reign of terror ever existed. The only people who trembled were those with secrets concerning their flirtations with Communism or who had something else to hide. And the liberals can’t point to a single one of those people Joe ever attacked. As Coulter insists, McCarthy’s only targets concerned subversives in the government.

McCarthy was castigated for attacking Gen. Ralph Zwicker, who was portrayed by the media and the liberals as a staunch and honest Army officer. But in testimony before the McClellan Committee on March 23, 1955, Zwicker denied giving McCarthy aide George Anastos derogatory information about Irving Peress, – who McCarthy charged had been promoted despite the fact he was a communist – in their telephone conversation of Jan. 22, 1954.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/8/211358.shtml

Joe McCarthy isn’t looking so crazy now.
SoulGlo on November 6, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Have you ever read Ann Coulter’s Treason? Joe McCarthy’s accusations weren’t merely sane. And they weren’t merely justifiable; all of his accusations were proven to be 100% TRUE by now-declassified Soviet documents.

I suppose some people can debate whether the folks McCarthy accused were “demons,” but that’s really beside the point. They weren’t just sympathetic to Communism, they were all directly working for the intelligence agencies of enemies of the United States of America.

Demonize the NYT-good
Demonize AM Rosenthal- bad
marks on November 6, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Tass and Pravda had shills who presented alternate viewpoints as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean they were “angelic” people.

And by the same token, of course it’s more than a little idiotic to imagine that either Rosenthal was ever acting at cross-purposes to the New York Times.

Do you want to talk about your father’s unlikely party affiliation?
His communism?

Yes.
That was quite a revelation. My father was a member of the Communist Youth Party, or whatever it was called at the time.

So the libtard never suspected a thing when daddy came home and spouted Stalinist propaganda?

For all I know, that might actually be true. Considering this guy’s career path, odds are he probably lived in a bubble where he never even met anyone more conservative than his father.

Be careful about throwing stones too quickly.

In the 1930s a lot of good people turned to communism (before Stalin kissed Adolph’s ass with the non-aggression pact). Up until the invasion of Poland (when the world saw Stalin would make a deal with any devil), the communists were the only significant global political movement firmly opposed to Nazism. The western democracies were doing little or nothing to oppose Hitler. Furthermore, in the US FDR’s programs often seemed to pick the worst aspects of communism and fascism (not sure if there were positive aspects).

doufree on November 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM

We can throw all the stones we want to at the commies. You are correct the Communist opposed the Nazis, but that didn’t make them the good guys. Both the Communist and the Nazis were socialist and totalitarian. The Communist just wanted the power for themselves, like so many other political factions at the time. They were both evil. But Hitler had more political strings to pull and eventually the power fell to him. The Communist may have been just as bad if they would have won the power struggle. And let me remind you that in American politics Communism and Nazism are both on the left because they are both socialistic and totalitarian.

Communism, Nazism, socialism, fascism, it’s all pretty much the same thing, no property rights, no freedom, little or no capitalism, they are all totalitarian in nature. For the most part, its only the uniforms that change.

Well, typically people join commie party groups not out of blind ignorance only to get converted, but rather because such groups align with their own existing personalities and belief systems.

Be careful about throwing stones too quickly.
In the 1930s a lot of good people turned to communism (before Stalin kissed Adolph’s ass with the non-aggression pact). Up until the invasion of Poland (when the world saw Stalin would make a deal with any devil), the communists were the only significant global political movement firmly opposed to Nazism.

doufree on November 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM

In the late 20′s, the Communist/Stalinist collectivization began in Ukraine. As a result, and by the early 30′s, millions of Ukrainians died of collectivized starvation. This extermination was by design, inasmuch as Ukraine was separatist and, also, anti-Communist and anti-Stalinist. This resulted in the purging of the kulaks, the collectivization of the land, the extermination of millions of Ukrainians [by designed starvation] – all for the glory of Stalin and the Communist Utopia. I would suggest reading The Harvest of Sorrow - by Robert Conquest.

Accordingly, I have a hard time with your statement that “the communists were the only significant global political movement firmly opposed to Nazism.” So what? Both “political movements” were “movements” of extermination and suppression. Accordingly, the Communists were no better than the Nazis. There is no room for any Soviet apologists, whatsoever. The fact that the Soviet Union opposed the Nazis is irrelevant. The Eastern Front was simply one grotesque evil, battling another. The Great Purges of the mid-30′s, the police state and the creation of the Gulag system [resulting in the extermination of even more millions] all serve to prove that the Communists and the Nazis were one and the same – pure, unadulterated evil.

Oh well, it’s out now.

We don’t call them communists or socialists anymore…they are lumped together and called progressives.

right2bright on November 6, 2007 at 12:33 PM

I thought they were (collectively) called Democrats now??

We don’t call them communists or socialists anymore…they are lumped together and called progressives.

right2bright on November 6, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Please do not deny “progressives” their hard-earned scare quotes!

I often wonder how these people think. I often chalk it up to a vast difference in values because I am from the South (pull yourself up by the bootstraps individualism) and they are from the North (old money and elitism).

____ Yankees.

Did the apple fall far from the tree?

Mallard T. Drake on November 6, 2007 at 10:46 AM

And is he a red apple as well?

He thinks Montclair, NJ, is the “last liberal bastion”? What does that tell you about where his compass points?

Holy crap thanks for posting that. I’d have missed it. I live in Montclair so this is especially amusing to me.

We have Stanley Fish, who is our curmudgeonly semiconservative guy.

Anyone who describes Stanley Fish as even SEMI-conservative is seriously deluded. The former head of Duke’s English Department, a “semiconservative” — ROFLMAO!