To the right-wingers here, notice that the author of this\r\nanalysis slams Michael Moore in the last paragraph. Therefore, before you\r\ngo concluding that the following is "liberal" shit, open your mind and\r\nlook at the raw facts. Understanding that the phenomena of Ann Coulter is\r\nbad for our political culture regardless of "right" and\r\n"left" is something even honest Conservatives can\r\nunderstand. \r\n<\/h3>\r\n----------------------------------------------- \r\n<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n<\/p>\r\n
http:\/\/spinsanity.org\/columns\/20030630.html<\/a>\r\n<\/h3>\r\n\r\nScreed: With Treason<\/i>, Ann Coulter once again defines a new low in\r\nAmerica's political debate<\/h3>\r\n
By Brendan Nyhan<\/a>
\r\nJune 30, 2003<\/p>\r\n<\/center>\r\nWith her new book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War\r\non Terrorism<\/i>, syndicated pundit Ann Coulter has driven the national\r\ndiscourse to a new low. No longer content to merely smear liberals and the media\r\nwith sweeping\r\ngeneralizations<\/a> and fraudulent\r\nevidence<\/a>, she has now upped the ante, accusing the entire Democratic Party\r\nas well as liberals and leftists nationwide of treason, a crime of disloyalty\r\nagainst the United States. But, as in her syndicated columns (many of which are\r\nadapted in the book) and her previous book Slander: Liberal Lies Against the\r\nAmerican Right<\/i>, Coulter's case relies in large part on irrational rhetoric\r\nand pervasive factual errors and deceptions. Regardless of your opinions about\r\nDemocrats, liberals or the left, her work should not be taken at face value.<\/p>\r\nContext: The syndicated column and Slander<\/i><\/b><\/p>\r\n
As we documented<\/a>\r\nback in July 2001, Coulter's writing is not just inflammatory but blatantly\r\nirrational. For years, she has infused her syndicated columns with cheap shots\r\nand asides directed at targets like President Bill Clinton, the American Civil\r\nLiberties Union and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt (among many others). Liberals\r\nare indiscriminately denounced as a group as "terrorists" or a\r\n"cult" who "hate democracy." Slander<\/i>, her bestseller\r\nfrom last year, quickly became notorious for its errors and distortions of the\r\nfacts, which we detailed in our examination<\/a>\r\nof the book. From deceptive footnotes to mischaracterized quotes to outright\r\nlies, Coulter broke all standards of reasonable political debate in her quest to\r\npaint a picture of a media that is unambiguously hostile to conservatives.\r\nJargon: How Coulter blurs distinctions in her rhetoric<\/b><\/p>\r\n
In Treason<\/i>, similar techniques are employed with aplomb. Consider her\r\nuse of language. The accusation of treason is, of course, one of the most grave\r\nthat can be made against a citizen of any country. Article III of the United\r\nStates Constitution specifies<\/a>\r\nthat "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war\r\nagainst them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and\r\ncomfort."<\/p>\r\nIn latching onto a powerful word with a specific legal meaning and casually\r\nleveling the charge as a blanket accusation against a wide array of people (as\r\nshe did with slander, which is a defamatory verbal statement), Coulter is\r\nattempting to smear virtually anyone who disagrees with her views on foreign\r\npolicy as treasonous. "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a\r\nposition on the side of treason," she writes on the first page of the book.\r\n"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side\r\nwith the enemy. This is their essence." (p. 1)<\/p>\r\n
At times, Coulter portrays liberals and the left as engaged in a grand\r\nconspiracy to destroy the United States:<\/p>\r\n
\r\n While undermining victory in the Cold War, liberals dedicated themselves to\r\n mainstreaming Communist ideals at home... Betraying the manifest national\r\n defense objectives of the country is only part of the left's treasonous\r\n scheme. They aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless\r\n attacks on morality and the truth. (p. 289)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nAt others, she instead insinuates that disagreeing with her about US policy\r\ntoward various hostile foreign countries or taking any action that could be\r\nconstrued as favorable to those countries' interests is equivalent to treasonous\r\nsupport for<\/i> those countries. Here are two classic examples of this\r\ntactic:<\/p>\r\n\r\n As a rule of thumb, Democrats opposed anything opposed by their cherished\r\n Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not like the idea of a militarily strong\r\n America. Neither did the Democrats! (p. 171)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n Democrats always had mysterious objections and secret "better" ways,\r\n which they would never tell us. Then they would vote whichever way would best\r\n advance Communist interests. (p. 177)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nIn the end, Coulter doesn't care about such distinctions, and goes so far as\r\nto specifically reject any distinction based on motive in judging her standard\r\nof treason:<\/p>\r\n
\r\n Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein,\r\n liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and\r\n on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.\r\n Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down. (p. 16)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nOf course, Coulter must engage in a complicated set of rhetorical tricks to\r\naccuse liberals of "fifty years of treason" (in a\r\n2001 column<\/a>, it was only "[t]wenty years of treason" - did\r\ninflation set in?). The book is primarily focused on the controversy over real\r\nand alleged Soviet espionage in the post-World War II era. We can certainly\r\nstipulate that Soviet agents who worked covertly inside the United States\r\ngovernment did commit treason. But Coulter broadens the term to include\r\nvirtually every liberal, leftist, Democrat or member of the media, in each case\r\nobscuring distinctions between individuals and stereotyping the entire group.<\/p>\r\nTo do this, she condemns the left and liberals for defending the proven (and\r\nalleged) Soviet spies at the time and the Democratic Party officials for not\r\ntaking the threat seriously enough. Many have offered serious critiques of the\r\nactions of individuals in this era. But Coulter implies that nearly every person\r\nleft of center is culpable for failing to take action to prevent a small group\r\nof Soviet agents and their willful collaborators from infiltrating the US\r\ngovernment (a conclusion based in part on evidence that did not come out for\r\nyears, including decrypted Soviet cables released in 1995). She frequently\r\nimplies that liberal attacks on Senator Joseph McCarthy and the alleged hysteria\r\nof McCarthyism were nothing more than an attempt to cover up this widespread\r\ntreachery:<\/p>\r\n
\r\n Springing naturally to their traitorous positions, the adversary press\r\n vilified HUAC [the House Un-American Activities Committee] for persecuting the\r\n charming State Department official. [Alger Hiss] (p. 20)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n By screaming about "McCarthyism," liberals would force the nation to\r\n "move on" from the subject of their own treachery. (p. 30)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n McCarthy's fundamental thesis was absolutely correct: The Democratic Party had\r\n fallen to the allures of totalitarianism. It was as if the Republicans had\r\n been caught in bed with Hitler. (p. 71)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n Stalinist spies were passing secret government files to Soviet agents, and the\r\n Treason Party sprang to action by vigorously investigating the precise words\r\n McCarthy had used in a speech to a women's Republican club in West Virginia.\r\n (p. 103)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n The primary victim of outrageous persecution during the McCarthy era was\r\n McCarthy. Liberals hid their traitorous conduct by making McCarthy the issue.\r\n They did to McCarthy everything they falsely accused him of doing to them. (p.\r\n 104)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n Adding insult to injury, Nixon had the audacity to make a campaign issue of\r\n the Democrats' treasonous stupidity. (p. 196)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nIn the above quotes, the press is labeled as "traitorous" for\r\ntreating HUAC unfairly, the Democrats are called the "Treason Party"\r\nand their alleged stupidity (which does not imply malevolent intent) is\r\ncondemned as "treasonous." These cartoonish ad hominem attacks obscure\r\nkey distinctions between individuals, particularly with regard to their\r\ninvolvement in these debates and the differences in motives that guided their\r\nactions. Put simply, being wrong about the scope and severity of the Soviet\r\nthreat does not make one a traitor.<\/p>\r\n
Coulter also salts the chapters she devotes to the post-war spy scandals with\r\nfrequent and gratuitous references to President Clinton in an attempt to\r\nassociate his scandals with those of Hiss and other accused or actual spies. For\r\ninstance, she writes that Owen Lattimore, an alleged Soviet spy and the White\r\nHouse liaison to the State Department, "was the original Clinton. He\r\nstonewalled the truth, and liberals would never apologize." (p. 90) Later,\r\nshe states that "The tactics used to prop up Soviet spies were later\r\ndeployed to save a cheap flimflam artist [Clinton]." (p. 201)<\/p>\r\n
After a long examination of this so-called "McCarthy era," Coulter\r\njumps to Vietnam and the period since, and tries to lump liberals of this era in\r\nwith those of the past due to their supposed sympathy for the enemy and attempts\r\nto undermine and weaken US foreign policy. Yet in contrast to the\r\nwell-documented presence of Soviet spies in the US government, she provides no\r\nevidence that any liberals have taken actions intended to aid foreign enemies in\r\nthe periods since (with a couple of possible exceptions). Instead, she attempts\r\nto leverage the McCarthy era to tar contemporary liberals and Democrats using\r\nguilt by association and innuendo.<\/p>\r\n
First, she says Democratic foreign policy is essentially treasonous.\r\n"Democrats' gutless pusillanimity has emboldened America's enemies and\r\nterrified its allies." (p. 127) During Vietnam, she says liberals\r\n"[rolled] out all the usual arguments for treason ... The traitor lobby was\r\nascendant and very loud. The media did its part, too, sowing fear and trying to\r\nundermine patriotism." (p. 129) In her opinion, Democrats in Congress\r\nundermined the war by forcing Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to cease\r\nbombing of North Vietnam and aid to the South Vietnamese in the 1973-1975\r\nperiod. This is described as "the Democrats' traitorous execution of the\r\nVietnam War." (p. 151)<\/p>\r\n
After a history of the Reagan presidency and the US victory in the Cold War,\r\nshe moves on to the post-9\/11 era, writing, "Liberals spent most of the war\r\non terrorism in a funk because they didn't have enough grist for the anti-war\r\nmill. They nearly went stark raving mad at having to mouth patriotic platitudes\r\nwhile burning with a desire to aid the enemy." (p. 14) Liberals\r\n"clamored for America to be defeated, caterwauling about the ferocious\r\nAfghan fighters and proclaiming Afghanistan a Vietnam-style 'quagmire.'"\r\n(p. 133) She even implies that Democrats secretly support the terrorists who\r\nattacked America. "Unable to root for al-Qaeda openly, Democrats lodged\r\nsurly objections to the Bureau of Prisons for listening to the conversations of\r\nprison inmates suspected of plotting terrorist attacks." (p. 267)<\/p>\r\n
Liberal syndicated columnist Molly Ivins is described as coming "[f]rom\r\nthe traitor lobby's women's auxiliary." (p. 134) Mark Danner, a professor\r\nand journalist, is described as having written an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times\r\n"[h]oping to erode the nation's resolve." (p. 136) Notice the logic\r\nhere - criticizing the US or US policy is equivalent to hoping for its defeat.<\/p>\r\n
In the Iraq war, she accuses Democrats of engaging in "treasonous\r\ncalculations" by insincerely voting for the resolution to authorize the use\r\nof force in Iraq:<\/p>\r\n
\r\n When the Democrats' bluff was called in a roll call vote in Congress, many\r\n voted for war with Iraq. Inadvertently performing a great service, New York\r\n Times columnist Maureen Dowd revealed the Democrats' treasonous calculations.\r\n She explained that Democrats would be forced to fake enthusiasm for the war on\r\n terror or lose the American people forever. Democrats, she said, "fear\r\n that if they approach" Iraq the same way they did during the Gulf War in\r\n 1991, "they will be portrayed as McGovernite wimps." Consequently,\r\n liberals would lie and pretend to support America. With their votes duly\r\n recorded, they went right back to attacking the war. (p. 14-15)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nThose celebrities who opposed the war are labeled "an instant sedition\r\nlobby" (p. 245).\r\n
So desperate is Coulter to call liberals of the contemporary era traitors\r\nthat she suggests that President Jimmy Carter's acceptance of the Nobel Peace\r\nPrize constitutes treason under the definition in the Constitution. When Carter\r\nwas given the award, the chairman of the Nobel committee said it "should be\r\ninterpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [Bush] administration\r\nhas taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United\r\nStates." This is Coulter's analysis of Carter's acceptance of the prize:<\/p>\r\n
\r\n Carter would travel to Norway to accept the award in December 2002 - two\r\n months after Congress had authorized war against Iraq. Article III's\r\n definition of treason is narrow. But after Congress's action authorizing war,\r\n for any American to accept this award on the ground offered does sound\r\n terribly like "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and\r\n comfort." (p. 257)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nDuring an appearance last Wednesday on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity\r\n& Colmes," Coulter went even further, insinuating that liberals today\r\nare collaborating with Saddam Hussein and saying their behavior is equivalent to\r\ncollusion with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam in an exchange with co-host Alan\r\nColmes:<\/p>\r\n
\r\n COLMES: And who that is alive today would you accuse of treason?\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n COULTER: Look, I wrote the book, let me answer the question. I understand what\r\n the question is. I'm sorry, we're going to have to wait to get the cables from\r\n Saddam Hussein to, you know, the traitors today.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n What we have now is the evidence from Stalin's agents in the United States --\r\n evidence that was not released until 1995 and which Democrats sheltered,\r\n defended, ferociously attacked anyone who went after Soviet spies, agents of\r\n Stalin, a regime as evil as the Nazis. They were defended by the Democratic\r\n Party. It would be as if Republicans were caught in bed with Hitler.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n COLMES: Ann, I'm asking you if there's anybody today you'll accuse of treason?\r\n Apparently, you don't want to make that accusation against anyone in\r\n particular, liberal or Democrat.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n COULTER: You're consistently missing the point of this book. OK, I'm going\r\n have to wait for the Venona Project on today's traitors. But my question to\r\n you is how would liberals behave differently if they were in Saddam Hussein's\r\n pay? How would they behave differently if they were in Osama bin Laden's pay?\r\n Answer that question.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n COLMES: If you're going to say treason, which is a very serious charge...\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n COULTER: Would they be screaming about a civil liberties crisis every time\r\n Ashcroft talks to a Muslim? What is the point of that?\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nIronically, Coulter approvingly cites a quote from the historian Paul Johnson\r\nsaying that "Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth,\r\nand those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of\r\nanti-social ones." (p. 292) If only she recognized how right he was.\r\n
Facts: An array of falsehoods and mischaracterizations<\/b><\/p>\r\n
As stated above, Coulter presents a detailed historical argument regarding\r\nthe McCarthy era and how it is portrayed in the media. She appears to make a\r\ncredible case against the caricature that is often portrayed, but any statement\r\nbeyond this is outside the scope of this column. The specifics of her analysis\r\nrequire close scrutiny by an expert conversant in the wide range of scholarship\r\nthat is now publicly available about the era. But those factual claims that can\r\neasily be checked, particularly those that pertain to contemporary politics, are\r\nextremely suspect. An investigation of a relatively small number of suspect\r\nreferences from among the hundreds of sourced and unsourced factual claims\r\npresented in Treason<\/i> revealed numerous factual errors and distortions,\r\nthe worst of which are detailed below.<\/p>\r\nMisleading quotation and sourcing of claims<\/i>\r\n
Coulter engages in a series of deceptive practices in quoting people and\r\nsourcing her claims. Most commonly, she distorts the authorship of articles\r\nshe's citing. Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine\r\nprofiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports,\r\nfeeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. These include\r\na New York Times Week in Review article by historian Richard Gid Powers cited as\r\n"According to the Times..." (p. 6); a Washington Post book review by\r\nPatricia Aufderheide described as "the Washington Post said..." (p.\r\n97) and "The Washington Post called..." (p. 98); and a New York Times\r\nMagazine article by reporter Leslie Gelb cited as "the New York Times\r\nreported..." (p. 171). At one point, she cites a single Washington Post\r\nmagazine article by journalist Orville Schell four separate ways (implying\r\nmultiple stories to the casual reader), in one case calling it "a two-part,\r\nfour-billion-column-inch Washington Post story" in which "the Post\r\nsaid..." (p. 92).<\/p>\r\n
Coulter also repeatedly cites quotations out of context from the original\r\nsource material, implying that reporters reached conclusions that were actually\r\npresented by sources quoted in the piece. In one particularly dishonest case,\r\nshe claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a\r\n'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of\r\nGrenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a\r\nReagan administration official<\/i> quoted in a Week in Review story who said,\r\n''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a\r\nresurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the\r\ndrop of a hat.''<\/p>\r\n
Coulter goes on to denounce the New York Times for putting terms like\r\n"evil empire" in quotes, which she claims "expressed contempt for\r\nthe idea of winning the Cold War." However, the article she cites as proof\r\nof the use of quotation marks is actually directly quoting Reagan saying the\r\nterm. (p. 158) Later, she condemns the Times for its response to Reagan's\r\ninvasion of Grenada. "The Times rages that Reagan was 'Making the World\r\n"Safe" for Hypocrisy,'" she writes, not mentioning that the quote\r\nis the headline on an op-ed by a Times columnist, not an editorial. (p. 179)<\/p>\r\n
She also denounces a New York Times obituary of Joel Barr for saying he was\r\n"suspected of passing secret information" to the Soviets, writing that\r\n"Dozens of Soviet cables had identified Barr as a Soviet spy" as\r\nthough this information was not provided to Times readers. (p. 53) But the\r\nobituary actually states that "John Haynes, the co-author with Harvey Klehr\r\nof a forthcoming Soviet history to be published by Yale, said that the\r\nintelligence reports show that Mr. Barr and Mr. Sarant 'were among the K.G.B.'s\r\nmost valuable technical spies'" -- the same experts she cites in the\r\nfootnote backing up her claim!<\/p>\r\n
And in a passage focused on contemporary politics, Coulter misrepresents a\r\npersonal attack against her as one on all "people who support ethnic\r\nprofiling of airline passengers" (p. 261), saying Senator Richard Durbin,\r\nD-IL, called such people "troglodytes 'crawling on [their] bell[ies] in the\r\nmud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho." (brackets hers) In\r\nfact, Durbin wrote the following in a letter to a Springfield, Illinois\r\nnewspaper (notice how Coulter pluralized his wording with brackets to obscure\r\nthe reference):<\/p>\r\n
\r\n I often wonder whether Ann Coulter's political views are just a pose.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n Having seen her on television, she is bright, witty and appears to be the\r\n product of a good education and good grooming. There is nothing about her\r\n which suggests she has spent any time crawling on her belly in the mud at a\r\n right-wing militia training camp in Idaho.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n But when she opens her mouth or logs on her computer, Dr. Coulter is\r\n transformed into a political creature that could take Pat Buchanan's breath\r\n away.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nDurbin goes on to denounce her views on ethnic profiling, but to suggest that\r\nhis crack represents his view of everyone who supports her stance on the issue\r\nis patently false.<\/p>\r\nUtter falsehoods and egregious factual misrepresentations<\/i>\r\n
Coulter makes at least five factual claims that are indisputably false.\r\nFirst, she writes "When the United States made an alliance with mad mullahs\r\nin Afghanistan against the USSR, no sensible American would go sign up with the\r\nTaliban." (p. 51) However, the Taliban did not form a militia until 1994,\r\nseveral years after the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan (1989) and\r\nits subsequent collapse (1991).<\/p>\r\n
Later, she denounces Congressmen Jim McDermott, D-WA, David Bonior, D-MI, and\r\nMike Thompson, D-CA, for their trip to Iraq in late September 2002, asking,\r\n"Weren't any Democrats the tiniest bit irritated that members of Congress\r\nwere meeting with a tyrant as the U.S. prepared to attack him?" (p. 225)\r\nThe group did not meet with Saddam, who is obviously the tyrant in question,\r\nthough they did meet with Iraqi officials.<\/p>\r\n
Coulter also offers this supposed quotation from Clinton: "Bill Clinton,\r\nthe man who deployed the best fighting force on the globe to build urinals in\r\nBosnia, actually said of Muslim terrorists, 'They have good reason to hate us\r\n... after all, we sent the Crusaders to try and conquer them.'" (p. 229)\r\nClinton never said this according to searches of Google and the Nexis news\r\ndatabase, nor do any sources repeat this quotation. The only clue to its source\r\nis its slight resemblance to a passage in a\r\nNovember 2001 speech<\/a> at Georgetown University in which Clinton discusses a\r\nstory from the Crusades and its enduring relevance today in far more nuanced\r\nterms. Given that the speech has been widely\r\ndistorted<\/a> in the media, it would not be surprising if this is Coulter's\r\nsupposed source (she provides no footnote for the quote).<\/< p>\r\nIn one bizarre case, she misrepresents the reasons for Carter's Nobel Prize,\r\nstating that it was awarded "for his masterful negotiation of the 1994 deal\r\n[the Agreed Framework with North Korea], though, in candor, he got the prize for\r\nNorth Korea only because the committee couldn't formally award a prize for\r\nBush-bashing, which was the stated reason." (p. 233) But the Nobel\r\ncommittee's award\r\nannouncement<\/a> cites the award as recognizing Carter's "decades of\r\nuntiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to\r\nadvance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social\r\ndevelopment," of which North Korea was only a part. In the\r\npresentation speech<\/a> at the Nobel ceremony, his work on the North Korea issue\r\nwas not even mentioned.<\/p>\r\nLastly, she claims that Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General under\r\nPresident Johnson, "argued that Iran should be able to 'determine its own\r\nfate'" after returning from a meeting with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran\r\nin 1979. "[D]etermine its own fate" is presented as a direct quote,\r\nbut it turns out to be a quote from an abstract of a New York Times article, not\r\na quote from Clark. In fact, it is an abstract paraphrase of the reporter's\r\nsummary of Clark's statement summarizing the views of the Ayatollah! (The quote\r\n"determine its own fate" does not appear in any article in the Nexis\r\nnews database along with Clark's name and Iran.)<\/p>\r\n
In several other cases, Coulter thoroughly twists and misrepresents her\r\nsource material to support her ideological agenda. Most of these are related to\r\nher claims that the media engages in "total suppression" of the\r\nreligion of Muslim terrorists who kill people. (p. 279) She criticizes the New\r\nYork Times for a March 5, 1993 headline about the first World Trade Center\r\nbombing, which read "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade\r\nCenter," saying the Times was "[e]merging as al-Qaeda's leading\r\nspokesman in America." (p. 279) However, the first paragraph of the article\r\nstates that the man was "described by the authorities as an Islamic\r\nfundamentalist." In addition, on the same day, the Times ran an 1100 word\r\narticle titled "Suspect in Bombing Is Linked To Sect With a Violent\r\nVoice" detailing how Mohammed A. Salameh "is said by law-enforcement\r\nofficials to be a follower of a blind Muslim cleric who preaches a violent\r\nmessage of Islamic fundamentalism from a walk-up mosque in Jersey City."<\/p>\r\n
She also condemns the Times for its reporting on an Egyptian immigrant named\r\nHesham Hadayet who went on a shooting rampage at an El Al terminal in Los\r\nAngeles. "In the past," she writes, "Hadayet had complained about\r\nhis neighbors flying a U.S. flag, he had a 'Read the Koran' sticker on his front\r\ndoor, and he had expressed virulent hatred for Jews. The Times reported straight\r\nthat his motive for the shooting may have been 'some dispute over a fare.'"\r\n(p. 279-280) In fact, all three of those facts about Hadayet came from the\r\ninitial Times story on him, which straightforwardly presented two possible\r\nmotives for his actions as a hate crime against Jews or a terrorist attack (El\r\nAl is the Israeli national airline). The quote "some dispute over a\r\nfare" came in a separate story that day based on an interview with\r\nHadayet's uncle, who, the reporter summarized, "said his normally\r\nwell-mannered nephew was always prickly about being taken for a fool by\r\ncustomers, and so he expected that some dispute over a fare had erupted at the\r\nEl Al counter." This is clearly not written as though it is the reporter's\r\nopinion that it is true. It is pure conjecture and described as such (the uncle\r\n"expected" that it was a dispute).<\/p>\r\n
In addition, Coulter denounces coverage of the sniper case, saying "you\r\nneed a New York Times decoder ring" to find out "John Allen Muhammad\r\nwas a Muslim. The only clue as to the sniper's religion was the Times's repeated\r\ninsistence that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the shootings." (p.\r\n281) But on the same day that the suspects' capture was first reported, another\r\n"clue" might have been two separate stories that prominently described\r\nMuhammad as a Muslim. Two days later, the Times ran an entire story about the\r\nrole of religion in the shootings, though it framed the issue mostly in\r\npsychiatric terms and did not speculate about the potential influence of\r\nextremist Islamic beliefs. In all four of these cases, it simply was not clear\r\nwhat the suspects' motives were from the facts available to the reporters\r\nwriting in the earliest possible moments of the investigation. Would Coulter\r\nhave them simply presume to know, as she claims to, that the the suspects'\r\nactions were driven by their religious beliefs?<\/p>\r\n
And finally, in a similar accusation, Coulter claims the Times "barely\r\nmentioned" the release of decrypted Soviet cables (the Venona Project),\r\nsaying "[i]t might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims\r\nof 'McCarthyism.'" The Times actually ran a 1000 word story on the\r\ndeclassification of the Venona cables. It did not run on the front page, but\r\nneither did the stories in the Washington Post, USA Today, Newsday or the\r\nSeattle Post-Intelligencer (among others). Among major newspapers, only the Los\r\nAngeles Times put the story on its front page.<\/p>\r\n
In short, Ann Coulter has once again revealed herself as one of the most\r\ndestructive forces in American politics, repeatedly making outrageously\r\nirrational arguments and demonstrably false claims. Treason<\/i> is the\r\nculmination of a dismaying trend toward factually misleading and inflammatory\r\nbooks from pundits such as Michael\r\nMoore<\/a>, Sean\r\nHannity<\/a> and Michael\r\nSavage<\/a> (Salon Premium subscription or viewing of ad required for Savage\r\ncolumn). These authors may delight partisans and make their publishers rich, but\r\ntheir work impoverishes our political discourse.<\/p>\r\nRelated links:
\r\n-Savage\r\nwith the truth<\/a> (Ben Fritz, 2\/19\/03)
\r\n-New\r\nYork Sun suggests treason prosecution for free speech<\/a> (Brendan Nyhan,\r\n2\/7\/03)
\r\n-The blowhard next\r\ndoor<\/a> (Ben Fritz and Bryan Keefer, 8\/26\/02)
\r\n-Throwing the book at\r\nher<\/a> (Bryan Keefer, 7\/13\/02)
\r\n-One Moore stupid\r\nwhite man<\/a> (Ben Fritz, 4\/3\/02)
\r\n-Bully brigade<\/a>\r\n(Brendan Nyhan, 3\/4\/02)
\r\n- Clinton Speaks,\r\nPundits Spin: The Washington Times and the Spread of a Media Myth<\/a> (Bryan\r\nKeefer, 11\/19\/01)
\r\n-"Patriotism"\r\nand "Treason": A New Trend in Irresponsible Wartime Rhetoric<\/a> (Ben\r\nFritz, 10\/29\/01)
\r\n-Ann Coulter: The\r\nJargon Vanguard<\/a> (Brendan Nyhan, 7\/16\/01)
\r\n-Spinsanity on Ann Coulter<\/a><\/p>\r\n","author":"Brendan Nyhan (repost)","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/html","created":"2003-07-04 04:20:20","modified":"2003-07-04 04:20:20","fileurl":""},{"id":69497,"heading":"Other uses of Coulter's novel","article":"Since my cat refuses to use Ann Coulter's pamphlet as litter, I'll use the pages to roll joints in them.\r\n\r\nCan't believe trees have been cut for that piece of shit; even have second thoughts about putting it in the recyclables bin. ","author":"Cheech","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 04:48:25","modified":"2003-07-04 04:48:25","fileurl":""},{"id":69511,"heading":"False and Misleading","article":"Liberals hate Ann because she has their number and tells it like it is. It's the same with Sean Hannity.\r\n\r\nIf you want to talk about false and misleading you should tune into Pacifica Radio where you'll be getting a steading stream of false and misleading information.\r\n\r\nAnn Coulter rocks!","author":"Bush Admirer","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 09:42:18","modified":"2003-07-04 09:42:18","fileurl":""},{"id":69606,"heading":"Which Half Does She Think With","article":"This book should be put in "Fiction" section of every bargain table in the country. More Right Brain thinking with lies and distortions that could fill another book. If she ever starts thinking with her whole brain(the left side) maybe she could return to being a whole human being. As it is more lock step right wing-nut thinking. With all the misinformation in this book , it makes you wonder about her law credentials and why she became a babbling talking head instead of still pursuing a law career.","author":"krankyman","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 14:02:59","modified":"2003-07-04 14:02:59","fileurl":""},{"id":69625,"heading":"Ann Coulter","article":" In the 1960's and even the 1970's someone like Ann would appear only as a cartoon figure in Mad Magazine or, maybe in a male version, in All in the Family. The fact that she is now prominent in the flesh (and apparantly part of her schtick is showing a lot of it) is an indication of just how low political discourse in this country has sunk.","author":"Meyer London","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 14:21:43","modified":"2003-07-04 14:21:43","fileurl":""},{"id":69755,"heading":"revised cover from publisher","article":"![]("http:\/\/images.indymedia.org\/imc\/washingtondc\/coulter.gif")
<\/p>","author":"x","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/html","created":"2003-07-04 19:24:23","modified":"2003-07-04 19:24:23","fileurl":""},{"id":69778,"heading":"Desiree Coulter","article":"She always look so tight-lipped in her pictures.\r\nShe must have buck teeth to hide after decades of conservative c..k sucking.","author":"da pimp","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 22:15:19","modified":"2003-07-04 22:15:19","fileurl":""},{"id":69782,"heading":"Ann's widely respected","article":"Ann Coulter is widely respected. She's an attractive, intelligent, and successful woman who is much admired. \r\n\r\nAnn sets the standard for what a woman can become in our society if she works hard, has ability, and applies herself. She's the role model of choice for young girls everywhere.\r\n\r\nShe's also the counterbalance for losers like Hillary Clinton, Amy Goodman, and Katie Couric.\r\n\r\nHer books and her commentary leave liberals no place to hide. She exposes them for the losers that they are. It's pretty basic really. She's on target with her excellent journalism.","author":"Bush Admirer","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 22:25:53","modified":"2003-07-04 22:25:53","fileurl":""},{"id":69786,"heading":"Bush Admirer","article":""Ann Coulter is widely respected."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"She's an attractive, intelligent, and successful woman who is much admired."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation \r\n\r\n"Ann sets the standard for what a woman can become in our society if she works hard, has ability, and applies herself."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"She's the role model of choice for young girls everywhere."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"She's also the counterbalance for losers like Hillary Clinton, Amy Goodman, and Katie Couric."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation \r\n\r\n"Her books and her commentary leave liberals no place to hide."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"She's on target with her excellent journalism."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\nFor more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n","author":"Scottie","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 22:29:34","modified":"2003-07-04 22:29:34","fileurl":""},{"id":69809,"heading":"repost since you're slow, B.A.","article":"Can't you pick a conservative that's actually intelligent? I mean, Ann is a total nutcase. Reducing those that disagree with the "conservative" view to treasonous bastards (her basic argument) is not American, *and it's not conservative*. It's reactionary. It's as far on the radical extreme of the right as those anarchists and commies you hate. \r\n\r\nGood lord, one of these days maybe you'll get a grip and stop being such a polemic. Be a conservative. That's fine. But don't be an idiot. Ann's arguments are stupid. Period.\r\n","author":"x to B.A.","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 23:54:31","modified":"2003-07-04 23:54:31","fileurl":""},{"id":69923,"heading":"Coulter must be...","article":"limbaaahs satin sheet","author":"cuzin it","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-05 20:18:49","modified":"2003-07-05 20:18:49","fileurl":""},{"id":70049,"heading":"Bush Admirer","article":""Ann is brilliant and most of her observations resonate."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"If it's stupid arguments you're looking for then I'd suggest you read Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal. That's where you're going to find really really dumb and stupid arguments." \r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"Ann Coulter rocks!"\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\nFor more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n ","author":"Scottie","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-06 13:38:11","modified":"2003-07-06 13:38:11","fileurl":""},{"id":70226,"heading":"The insult","article":"If you can't make a case against Ann's well presented argument then why not just toss out an insult like you've done here Scottie?","author":"Bush Admirer","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-07 01:43:46","modified":"2003-07-07 01:43:46","fileurl":""},{"id":70229,"heading":"Who's America","article":"Why do the Neocons think that they can decide who or what America is. You know it was real Americans who fought against the Limbaugh's and Coulter's of their day durring the first gilded age in the early nineteenth century. These true patriots fought for things like the 40 hour work week. \r\n She's gone a bit too far with this attack, and it must be because the true Americans of today are fighting back against the ultra Rich and Corporate media. We must be having an impact even against their giant meda monopoly. \r\nAlso people know something is wrong when their retirement accounts are being robbed by corporate swindlers. This book is class war against anybody who speaks out against those like Grover Norquist who are tearing down the last bit of new deal services the Governent provided and making sure their version of America only serves the Ulra Rich and powerfull. \r\n ","author":"Wavemaster","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-07 02:13:55","modified":"2003-07-07 02:13:55","fileurl":""},{"id":70231,"heading":"Anne","article":""fake scottie" that is.\r\n\r\nSince I dont adress points like that unless i have somthing meaningful to say.\r\n\r\nI havent read Anne's book and talking about all democrats as traitors (if that is what she did) sounds a little over the top but with people on the left saying basically the same thing about the republicans its hard to get too upset over it.\r\n\r\nAnd as it happens this one here is a VERY WELL SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION.\r\n\r\n"If it's stupid arguments you're looking for then I'd suggest you read Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal. That's where you're going to find really really dumb and stupid arguments."","author":"Scottie","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-07 02:37:44","modified":"2003-07-07 02:37:44","fileurl":""},{"id":70530,"heading":"Scottie","article":"""fake scottie" that is."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"And as it happens this one here is a VERY WELL SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"If it's stupid arguments you're looking for then I'd suggest you read Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal. That's where you're going to find really really dumb and stupid arguments."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\nFor more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","author":"Ted Thompson","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-08 11:49:42","modified":"2003-07-08 11:49:42","fileurl":""},{"id":70851,"heading":"hmm","article":""Unsubstantiated Allegation" \r\n Unsubstantiated Allegation ","author":"Scottie","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-09 04:49:55","modified":"2003-07-09 04:49:55","fileurl":""},{"id":70913,"heading":"To Scottie","article":"For more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies." \r\n\r\n","author":"Philosophy prof.","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-09 14:29:53","modified":"2003-07-09 14:29:53","fileurl":""}]}
Screed: With Treason<\/i>, Ann Coulter once again defines a new low in\r\nAmerica's political debate<\/h3>\r\n
By Brendan Nyhan<\/a> With her new book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War\r\non Terrorism<\/i>, syndicated pundit Ann Coulter has driven the national\r\ndiscourse to a new low. No longer content to merely smear liberals and the media\r\nwith sweeping\r\ngeneralizations<\/a> and fraudulent\r\nevidence<\/a>, she has now upped the ante, accusing the entire Democratic Party\r\nas well as liberals and leftists nationwide of treason, a crime of disloyalty\r\nagainst the United States. But, as in her syndicated columns (many of which are\r\nadapted in the book) and her previous book Slander: Liberal Lies Against the\r\nAmerican Right<\/i>, Coulter's case relies in large part on irrational rhetoric\r\nand pervasive factual errors and deceptions. Regardless of your opinions about\r\nDemocrats, liberals or the left, her work should not be taken at face value.<\/p>\r\n Context: The syndicated column and Slander<\/i><\/b><\/p>\r\n As we documented<\/a>\r\nback in July 2001, Coulter's writing is not just inflammatory but blatantly\r\nirrational. For years, she has infused her syndicated columns with cheap shots\r\nand asides directed at targets like President Bill Clinton, the American Civil\r\nLiberties Union and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt (among many others). Liberals\r\nare indiscriminately denounced as a group as "terrorists" or a\r\n"cult" who "hate democracy." Slander<\/i>, her bestseller\r\nfrom last year, quickly became notorious for its errors and distortions of the\r\nfacts, which we detailed in our examination<\/a>\r\nof the book. From deceptive footnotes to mischaracterized quotes to outright\r\nlies, Coulter broke all standards of reasonable political debate in her quest to\r\npaint a picture of a media that is unambiguously hostile to conservatives.\r\n Jargon: How Coulter blurs distinctions in her rhetoric<\/b><\/p>\r\n In Treason<\/i>, similar techniques are employed with aplomb. Consider her\r\nuse of language. The accusation of treason is, of course, one of the most grave\r\nthat can be made against a citizen of any country. Article III of the United\r\nStates Constitution specifies<\/a>\r\nthat "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war\r\nagainst them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and\r\ncomfort."<\/p>\r\n In latching onto a powerful word with a specific legal meaning and casually\r\nleveling the charge as a blanket accusation against a wide array of people (as\r\nshe did with slander, which is a defamatory verbal statement), Coulter is\r\nattempting to smear virtually anyone who disagrees with her views on foreign\r\npolicy as treasonous. "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a\r\nposition on the side of treason," she writes on the first page of the book.\r\n"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side\r\nwith the enemy. This is their essence." (p. 1)<\/p>\r\n At times, Coulter portrays liberals and the left as engaged in a grand\r\nconspiracy to destroy the United States:<\/p>\r\n At others, she instead insinuates that disagreeing with her about US policy\r\ntoward various hostile foreign countries or taking any action that could be\r\nconstrued as favorable to those countries' interests is equivalent to treasonous\r\nsupport for<\/i> those countries. Here are two classic examples of this\r\ntactic:<\/p>\r\n In the end, Coulter doesn't care about such distinctions, and goes so far as\r\nto specifically reject any distinction based on motive in judging her standard\r\nof treason:<\/p>\r\n Of course, Coulter must engage in a complicated set of rhetorical tricks to\r\naccuse liberals of "fifty years of treason" (in a\r\n2001 column<\/a>, it was only "[t]wenty years of treason" - did\r\ninflation set in?). The book is primarily focused on the controversy over real\r\nand alleged Soviet espionage in the post-World War II era. We can certainly\r\nstipulate that Soviet agents who worked covertly inside the United States\r\ngovernment did commit treason. But Coulter broadens the term to include\r\nvirtually every liberal, leftist, Democrat or member of the media, in each case\r\nobscuring distinctions between individuals and stereotyping the entire group.<\/p>\r\n To do this, she condemns the left and liberals for defending the proven (and\r\nalleged) Soviet spies at the time and the Democratic Party officials for not\r\ntaking the threat seriously enough. Many have offered serious critiques of the\r\nactions of individuals in this era. But Coulter implies that nearly every person\r\nleft of center is culpable for failing to take action to prevent a small group\r\nof Soviet agents and their willful collaborators from infiltrating the US\r\ngovernment (a conclusion based in part on evidence that did not come out for\r\nyears, including decrypted Soviet cables released in 1995). She frequently\r\nimplies that liberal attacks on Senator Joseph McCarthy and the alleged hysteria\r\nof McCarthyism were nothing more than an attempt to cover up this widespread\r\ntreachery:<\/p>\r\n In the above quotes, the press is labeled as "traitorous" for\r\ntreating HUAC unfairly, the Democrats are called the "Treason Party"\r\nand their alleged stupidity (which does not imply malevolent intent) is\r\ncondemned as "treasonous." These cartoonish ad hominem attacks obscure\r\nkey distinctions between individuals, particularly with regard to their\r\ninvolvement in these debates and the differences in motives that guided their\r\nactions. Put simply, being wrong about the scope and severity of the Soviet\r\nthreat does not make one a traitor.<\/p>\r\n Coulter also salts the chapters she devotes to the post-war spy scandals with\r\nfrequent and gratuitous references to President Clinton in an attempt to\r\nassociate his scandals with those of Hiss and other accused or actual spies. For\r\ninstance, she writes that Owen Lattimore, an alleged Soviet spy and the White\r\nHouse liaison to the State Department, "was the original Clinton. He\r\nstonewalled the truth, and liberals would never apologize." (p. 90) Later,\r\nshe states that "The tactics used to prop up Soviet spies were later\r\ndeployed to save a cheap flimflam artist [Clinton]." (p. 201)<\/p>\r\n After a long examination of this so-called "McCarthy era," Coulter\r\njumps to Vietnam and the period since, and tries to lump liberals of this era in\r\nwith those of the past due to their supposed sympathy for the enemy and attempts\r\nto undermine and weaken US foreign policy. Yet in contrast to the\r\nwell-documented presence of Soviet spies in the US government, she provides no\r\nevidence that any liberals have taken actions intended to aid foreign enemies in\r\nthe periods since (with a couple of possible exceptions). Instead, she attempts\r\nto leverage the McCarthy era to tar contemporary liberals and Democrats using\r\nguilt by association and innuendo.<\/p>\r\n First, she says Democratic foreign policy is essentially treasonous.\r\n"Democrats' gutless pusillanimity has emboldened America's enemies and\r\nterrified its allies." (p. 127) During Vietnam, she says liberals\r\n"[rolled] out all the usual arguments for treason ... The traitor lobby was\r\nascendant and very loud. The media did its part, too, sowing fear and trying to\r\nundermine patriotism." (p. 129) In her opinion, Democrats in Congress\r\nundermined the war by forcing Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to cease\r\nbombing of North Vietnam and aid to the South Vietnamese in the 1973-1975\r\nperiod. This is described as "the Democrats' traitorous execution of the\r\nVietnam War." (p. 151)<\/p>\r\n After a history of the Reagan presidency and the US victory in the Cold War,\r\nshe moves on to the post-9\/11 era, writing, "Liberals spent most of the war\r\non terrorism in a funk because they didn't have enough grist for the anti-war\r\nmill. They nearly went stark raving mad at having to mouth patriotic platitudes\r\nwhile burning with a desire to aid the enemy." (p. 14) Liberals\r\n"clamored for America to be defeated, caterwauling about the ferocious\r\nAfghan fighters and proclaiming Afghanistan a Vietnam-style 'quagmire.'"\r\n(p. 133) She even implies that Democrats secretly support the terrorists who\r\nattacked America. "Unable to root for al-Qaeda openly, Democrats lodged\r\nsurly objections to the Bureau of Prisons for listening to the conversations of\r\nprison inmates suspected of plotting terrorist attacks." (p. 267)<\/p>\r\n Liberal syndicated columnist Molly Ivins is described as coming "[f]rom\r\nthe traitor lobby's women's auxiliary." (p. 134) Mark Danner, a professor\r\nand journalist, is described as having written an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times\r\n"[h]oping to erode the nation's resolve." (p. 136) Notice the logic\r\nhere - criticizing the US or US policy is equivalent to hoping for its defeat.<\/p>\r\n In the Iraq war, she accuses Democrats of engaging in "treasonous\r\ncalculations" by insincerely voting for the resolution to authorize the use\r\nof force in Iraq:<\/p>\r\n Those celebrities who opposed the war are labeled "an instant sedition\r\nlobby" (p. 245).\r\n So desperate is Coulter to call liberals of the contemporary era traitors\r\nthat she suggests that President Jimmy Carter's acceptance of the Nobel Peace\r\nPrize constitutes treason under the definition in the Constitution. When Carter\r\nwas given the award, the chairman of the Nobel committee said it "should be\r\ninterpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [Bush] administration\r\nhas taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United\r\nStates." This is Coulter's analysis of Carter's acceptance of the prize:<\/p>\r\n During an appearance last Wednesday on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity\r\n& Colmes," Coulter went even further, insinuating that liberals today\r\nare collaborating with Saddam Hussein and saying their behavior is equivalent to\r\ncollusion with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam in an exchange with co-host Alan\r\nColmes:<\/p>\r\n Ironically, Coulter approvingly cites a quote from the historian Paul Johnson\r\nsaying that "Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth,\r\nand those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of\r\nanti-social ones." (p. 292) If only she recognized how right he was.\r\n Facts: An array of falsehoods and mischaracterizations<\/b><\/p>\r\n As stated above, Coulter presents a detailed historical argument regarding\r\nthe McCarthy era and how it is portrayed in the media. She appears to make a\r\ncredible case against the caricature that is often portrayed, but any statement\r\nbeyond this is outside the scope of this column. The specifics of her analysis\r\nrequire close scrutiny by an expert conversant in the wide range of scholarship\r\nthat is now publicly available about the era. But those factual claims that can\r\neasily be checked, particularly those that pertain to contemporary politics, are\r\nextremely suspect. An investigation of a relatively small number of suspect\r\nreferences from among the hundreds of sourced and unsourced factual claims\r\npresented in Treason<\/i> revealed numerous factual errors and distortions,\r\nthe worst of which are detailed below.<\/p>\r\nMisleading quotation and sourcing of claims<\/i>\r\n Coulter engages in a series of deceptive practices in quoting people and\r\nsourcing her claims. Most commonly, she distorts the authorship of articles\r\nshe's citing. Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine\r\nprofiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports,\r\nfeeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. These include\r\na New York Times Week in Review article by historian Richard Gid Powers cited as\r\n"According to the Times..." (p. 6); a Washington Post book review by\r\nPatricia Aufderheide described as "the Washington Post said..." (p.\r\n97) and "The Washington Post called..." (p. 98); and a New York Times\r\nMagazine article by reporter Leslie Gelb cited as "the New York Times\r\nreported..." (p. 171). At one point, she cites a single Washington Post\r\nmagazine article by journalist Orville Schell four separate ways (implying\r\nmultiple stories to the casual reader), in one case calling it "a two-part,\r\nfour-billion-column-inch Washington Post story" in which "the Post\r\nsaid..." (p. 92).<\/p>\r\n Coulter also repeatedly cites quotations out of context from the original\r\nsource material, implying that reporters reached conclusions that were actually\r\npresented by sources quoted in the piece. In one particularly dishonest case,\r\nshe claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a\r\n'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of\r\nGrenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a\r\nReagan administration official<\/i> quoted in a Week in Review story who said,\r\n''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a\r\nresurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the\r\ndrop of a hat.''<\/p>\r\n Coulter goes on to denounce the New York Times for putting terms like\r\n"evil empire" in quotes, which she claims "expressed contempt for\r\nthe idea of winning the Cold War." However, the article she cites as proof\r\nof the use of quotation marks is actually directly quoting Reagan saying the\r\nterm. (p. 158) Later, she condemns the Times for its response to Reagan's\r\ninvasion of Grenada. "The Times rages that Reagan was 'Making the World\r\n"Safe" for Hypocrisy,'" she writes, not mentioning that the quote\r\nis the headline on an op-ed by a Times columnist, not an editorial. (p. 179)<\/p>\r\n She also denounces a New York Times obituary of Joel Barr for saying he was\r\n"suspected of passing secret information" to the Soviets, writing that\r\n"Dozens of Soviet cables had identified Barr as a Soviet spy" as\r\nthough this information was not provided to Times readers. (p. 53) But the\r\nobituary actually states that "John Haynes, the co-author with Harvey Klehr\r\nof a forthcoming Soviet history to be published by Yale, said that the\r\nintelligence reports show that Mr. Barr and Mr. Sarant 'were among the K.G.B.'s\r\nmost valuable technical spies'" -- the same experts she cites in the\r\nfootnote backing up her claim!<\/p>\r\n And in a passage focused on contemporary politics, Coulter misrepresents a\r\npersonal attack against her as one on all "people who support ethnic\r\nprofiling of airline passengers" (p. 261), saying Senator Richard Durbin,\r\nD-IL, called such people "troglodytes 'crawling on [their] bell[ies] in the\r\nmud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho." (brackets hers) In\r\nfact, Durbin wrote the following in a letter to a Springfield, Illinois\r\nnewspaper (notice how Coulter pluralized his wording with brackets to obscure\r\nthe reference):<\/p>\r\n Durbin goes on to denounce her views on ethnic profiling, but to suggest that\r\nhis crack represents his view of everyone who supports her stance on the issue\r\nis patently false.<\/p>\r\nUtter falsehoods and egregious factual misrepresentations<\/i>\r\n Coulter makes at least five factual claims that are indisputably false.\r\nFirst, she writes "When the United States made an alliance with mad mullahs\r\nin Afghanistan against the USSR, no sensible American would go sign up with the\r\nTaliban." (p. 51) However, the Taliban did not form a militia until 1994,\r\nseveral years after the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan (1989) and\r\nits subsequent collapse (1991).<\/p>\r\n Later, she denounces Congressmen Jim McDermott, D-WA, David Bonior, D-MI, and\r\nMike Thompson, D-CA, for their trip to Iraq in late September 2002, asking,\r\n"Weren't any Democrats the tiniest bit irritated that members of Congress\r\nwere meeting with a tyrant as the U.S. prepared to attack him?" (p. 225)\r\nThe group did not meet with Saddam, who is obviously the tyrant in question,\r\nthough they did meet with Iraqi officials.<\/p>\r\n Coulter also offers this supposed quotation from Clinton: "Bill Clinton,\r\nthe man who deployed the best fighting force on the globe to build urinals in\r\nBosnia, actually said of Muslim terrorists, 'They have good reason to hate us\r\n... after all, we sent the Crusaders to try and conquer them.'" (p. 229)\r\nClinton never said this according to searches of Google and the Nexis news\r\ndatabase, nor do any sources repeat this quotation. The only clue to its source\r\nis its slight resemblance to a passage in a\r\nNovember 2001 speech<\/a> at Georgetown University in which Clinton discusses a\r\nstory from the Crusades and its enduring relevance today in far more nuanced\r\nterms. Given that the speech has been widely\r\ndistorted<\/a> in the media, it would not be surprising if this is Coulter's\r\nsupposed source (she provides no footnote for the quote).<\/< p>\r\n In one bizarre case, she misrepresents the reasons for Carter's Nobel Prize,\r\nstating that it was awarded "for his masterful negotiation of the 1994 deal\r\n[the Agreed Framework with North Korea], though, in candor, he got the prize for\r\nNorth Korea only because the committee couldn't formally award a prize for\r\nBush-bashing, which was the stated reason." (p. 233) But the Nobel\r\ncommittee's award\r\nannouncement<\/a> cites the award as recognizing Carter's "decades of\r\nuntiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to\r\nadvance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social\r\ndevelopment," of which North Korea was only a part. In the\r\npresentation speech<\/a> at the Nobel ceremony, his work on the North Korea issue\r\nwas not even mentioned.<\/p>\r\n Lastly, she claims that Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General under\r\nPresident Johnson, "argued that Iran should be able to 'determine its own\r\nfate'" after returning from a meeting with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran\r\nin 1979. "[D]etermine its own fate" is presented as a direct quote,\r\nbut it turns out to be a quote from an abstract of a New York Times article, not\r\na quote from Clark. In fact, it is an abstract paraphrase of the reporter's\r\nsummary of Clark's statement summarizing the views of the Ayatollah! (The quote\r\n"determine its own fate" does not appear in any article in the Nexis\r\nnews database along with Clark's name and Iran.)<\/p>\r\n In several other cases, Coulter thoroughly twists and misrepresents her\r\nsource material to support her ideological agenda. Most of these are related to\r\nher claims that the media engages in "total suppression" of the\r\nreligion of Muslim terrorists who kill people. (p. 279) She criticizes the New\r\nYork Times for a March 5, 1993 headline about the first World Trade Center\r\nbombing, which read "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade\r\nCenter," saying the Times was "[e]merging as al-Qaeda's leading\r\nspokesman in America." (p. 279) However, the first paragraph of the article\r\nstates that the man was "described by the authorities as an Islamic\r\nfundamentalist." In addition, on the same day, the Times ran an 1100 word\r\narticle titled "Suspect in Bombing Is Linked To Sect With a Violent\r\nVoice" detailing how Mohammed A. Salameh "is said by law-enforcement\r\nofficials to be a follower of a blind Muslim cleric who preaches a violent\r\nmessage of Islamic fundamentalism from a walk-up mosque in Jersey City."<\/p>\r\n She also condemns the Times for its reporting on an Egyptian immigrant named\r\nHesham Hadayet who went on a shooting rampage at an El Al terminal in Los\r\nAngeles. "In the past," she writes, "Hadayet had complained about\r\nhis neighbors flying a U.S. flag, he had a 'Read the Koran' sticker on his front\r\ndoor, and he had expressed virulent hatred for Jews. The Times reported straight\r\nthat his motive for the shooting may have been 'some dispute over a fare.'"\r\n(p. 279-280) In fact, all three of those facts about Hadayet came from the\r\ninitial Times story on him, which straightforwardly presented two possible\r\nmotives for his actions as a hate crime against Jews or a terrorist attack (El\r\nAl is the Israeli national airline). The quote "some dispute over a\r\nfare" came in a separate story that day based on an interview with\r\nHadayet's uncle, who, the reporter summarized, "said his normally\r\nwell-mannered nephew was always prickly about being taken for a fool by\r\ncustomers, and so he expected that some dispute over a fare had erupted at the\r\nEl Al counter." This is clearly not written as though it is the reporter's\r\nopinion that it is true. It is pure conjecture and described as such (the uncle\r\n"expected" that it was a dispute).<\/p>\r\n In addition, Coulter denounces coverage of the sniper case, saying "you\r\nneed a New York Times decoder ring" to find out "John Allen Muhammad\r\nwas a Muslim. The only clue as to the sniper's religion was the Times's repeated\r\ninsistence that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the shootings." (p.\r\n281) But on the same day that the suspects' capture was first reported, another\r\n"clue" might have been two separate stories that prominently described\r\nMuhammad as a Muslim. Two days later, the Times ran an entire story about the\r\nrole of religion in the shootings, though it framed the issue mostly in\r\npsychiatric terms and did not speculate about the potential influence of\r\nextremist Islamic beliefs. In all four of these cases, it simply was not clear\r\nwhat the suspects' motives were from the facts available to the reporters\r\nwriting in the earliest possible moments of the investigation. Would Coulter\r\nhave them simply presume to know, as she claims to, that the the suspects'\r\nactions were driven by their religious beliefs?<\/p>\r\n And finally, in a similar accusation, Coulter claims the Times "barely\r\nmentioned" the release of decrypted Soviet cables (the Venona Project),\r\nsaying "[i]t might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims\r\nof 'McCarthyism.'" The Times actually ran a 1000 word story on the\r\ndeclassification of the Venona cables. It did not run on the front page, but\r\nneither did the stories in the Washington Post, USA Today, Newsday or the\r\nSeattle Post-Intelligencer (among others). Among major newspapers, only the Los\r\nAngeles Times put the story on its front page.<\/p>\r\n In short, Ann Coulter has once again revealed herself as one of the most\r\ndestructive forces in American politics, repeatedly making outrageously\r\nirrational arguments and demonstrably false claims. Treason<\/i> is the\r\nculmination of a dismaying trend toward factually misleading and inflammatory\r\nbooks from pundits such as Michael\r\nMoore<\/a>, Sean\r\nHannity<\/a> and Michael\r\nSavage<\/a> (Salon Premium subscription or viewing of ad required for Savage\r\ncolumn). These authors may delight partisans and make their publishers rich, but\r\ntheir work impoverishes our political discourse.<\/p>\r\n Related links:
\r\nJune 30, 2003<\/p>\r\n<\/center>\r\n\r\n While undermining victory in the Cold War, liberals dedicated themselves to\r\n mainstreaming Communist ideals at home... Betraying the manifest national\r\n defense objectives of the country is only part of the left's treasonous\r\n scheme. They aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless\r\n attacks on morality and the truth. (p. 289)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n As a rule of thumb, Democrats opposed anything opposed by their cherished\r\n Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not like the idea of a militarily strong\r\n America. Neither did the Democrats! (p. 171)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n Democrats always had mysterious objections and secret "better" ways,\r\n which they would never tell us. Then they would vote whichever way would best\r\n advance Communist interests. (p. 177)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein,\r\n liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and\r\n on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.\r\n Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down. (p. 16)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n Springing naturally to their traitorous positions, the adversary press\r\n vilified HUAC [the House Un-American Activities Committee] for persecuting the\r\n charming State Department official. [Alger Hiss] (p. 20)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n By screaming about "McCarthyism," liberals would force the nation to\r\n "move on" from the subject of their own treachery. (p. 30)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n McCarthy's fundamental thesis was absolutely correct: The Democratic Party had\r\n fallen to the allures of totalitarianism. It was as if the Republicans had\r\n been caught in bed with Hitler. (p. 71)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n Stalinist spies were passing secret government files to Soviet agents, and the\r\n Treason Party sprang to action by vigorously investigating the precise words\r\n McCarthy had used in a speech to a women's Republican club in West Virginia.\r\n (p. 103)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n The primary victim of outrageous persecution during the McCarthy era was\r\n McCarthy. Liberals hid their traitorous conduct by making McCarthy the issue.\r\n They did to McCarthy everything they falsely accused him of doing to them. (p.\r\n 104)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n Adding insult to injury, Nixon had the audacity to make a campaign issue of\r\n the Democrats' treasonous stupidity. (p. 196)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n When the Democrats' bluff was called in a roll call vote in Congress, many\r\n voted for war with Iraq. Inadvertently performing a great service, New York\r\n Times columnist Maureen Dowd revealed the Democrats' treasonous calculations.\r\n She explained that Democrats would be forced to fake enthusiasm for the war on\r\n terror or lose the American people forever. Democrats, she said, "fear\r\n that if they approach" Iraq the same way they did during the Gulf War in\r\n 1991, "they will be portrayed as McGovernite wimps." Consequently,\r\n liberals would lie and pretend to support America. With their votes duly\r\n recorded, they went right back to attacking the war. (p. 14-15)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n Carter would travel to Norway to accept the award in December 2002 - two\r\n months after Congress had authorized war against Iraq. Article III's\r\n definition of treason is narrow. But after Congress's action authorizing war,\r\n for any American to accept this award on the ground offered does sound\r\n terribly like "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and\r\n comfort." (p. 257)\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n COLMES: And who that is alive today would you accuse of treason?\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n COULTER: Look, I wrote the book, let me answer the question. I understand what\r\n the question is. I'm sorry, we're going to have to wait to get the cables from\r\n Saddam Hussein to, you know, the traitors today.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n What we have now is the evidence from Stalin's agents in the United States --\r\n evidence that was not released until 1995 and which Democrats sheltered,\r\n defended, ferociously attacked anyone who went after Soviet spies, agents of\r\n Stalin, a regime as evil as the Nazis. They were defended by the Democratic\r\n Party. It would be as if Republicans were caught in bed with Hitler.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n COLMES: Ann, I'm asking you if there's anybody today you'll accuse of treason?\r\n Apparently, you don't want to make that accusation against anyone in\r\n particular, liberal or Democrat.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n COULTER: You're consistently missing the point of this book. OK, I'm going\r\n have to wait for the Venona Project on today's traitors. But my question to\r\n you is how would liberals behave differently if they were in Saddam Hussein's\r\n pay? How would they behave differently if they were in Osama bin Laden's pay?\r\n Answer that question.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n COLMES: If you're going to say treason, which is a very serious charge...\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n COULTER: Would they be screaming about a civil liberties crisis every time\r\n Ashcroft talks to a Muslim? What is the point of that?\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n I often wonder whether Ann Coulter's political views are just a pose.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n Having seen her on television, she is bright, witty and appears to be the\r\n product of a good education and good grooming. There is nothing about her\r\n which suggests she has spent any time crawling on her belly in the mud at a\r\n right-wing militia training camp in Idaho.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n But when she opens her mouth or logs on her computer, Dr. Coulter is\r\n transformed into a political creature that could take Pat Buchanan's breath\r\n away.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n-Savage\r\nwith the truth<\/a> (Ben Fritz, 2\/19\/03)
\r\n-New\r\nYork Sun suggests treason prosecution for free speech<\/a> (Brendan Nyhan,\r\n2\/7\/03)
\r\n-The blowhard next\r\ndoor<\/a> (Ben Fritz and Bryan Keefer, 8\/26\/02)
\r\n-Throwing the book at\r\nher<\/a> (Bryan Keefer, 7\/13\/02)
\r\n-One Moore stupid\r\nwhite man<\/a> (Ben Fritz, 4\/3\/02)
\r\n-Bully brigade<\/a>\r\n(Brendan Nyhan, 3\/4\/02)
\r\n- Clinton Speaks,\r\nPundits Spin: The Washington Times and the Spread of a Media Myth<\/a> (Bryan\r\nKeefer, 11\/19\/01)
\r\n-"Patriotism"\r\nand "Treason": A New Trend in Irresponsible Wartime Rhetoric<\/a> (Ben\r\nFritz, 10\/29\/01)
\r\n-Ann Coulter: The\r\nJargon Vanguard<\/a> (Brendan Nyhan, 7\/16\/01)
\r\n-Spinsanity on Ann Coulter<\/a><\/p>\r\n","author":"Brendan Nyhan (repost)","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/html","created":"2003-07-04 04:20:20","modified":"2003-07-04 04:20:20","fileurl":""},{"id":69497,"heading":"Other uses of Coulter's novel","article":"Since my cat refuses to use Ann Coulter's pamphlet as litter, I'll use the pages to roll joints in them.\r\n\r\nCan't believe trees have been cut for that piece of shit; even have second thoughts about putting it in the recyclables bin. ","author":"Cheech","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 04:48:25","modified":"2003-07-04 04:48:25","fileurl":""},{"id":69511,"heading":"False and Misleading","article":"Liberals hate Ann because she has their number and tells it like it is. It's the same with Sean Hannity.\r\n\r\nIf you want to talk about false and misleading you should tune into Pacifica Radio where you'll be getting a steading stream of false and misleading information.\r\n\r\nAnn Coulter rocks!","author":"Bush Admirer","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 09:42:18","modified":"2003-07-04 09:42:18","fileurl":""},{"id":69606,"heading":"Which Half Does She Think With","article":"This book should be put in "Fiction" section of every bargain table in the country. More Right Brain thinking with lies and distortions that could fill another book. If she ever starts thinking with her whole brain(the left side) maybe she could return to being a whole human being. As it is more lock step right wing-nut thinking. With all the misinformation in this book , it makes you wonder about her law credentials and why she became a babbling talking head instead of still pursuing a law career.","author":"krankyman","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 14:02:59","modified":"2003-07-04 14:02:59","fileurl":""},{"id":69625,"heading":"Ann Coulter","article":" In the 1960's and even the 1970's someone like Ann would appear only as a cartoon figure in Mad Magazine or, maybe in a male version, in All in the Family. The fact that she is now prominent in the flesh (and apparantly part of her schtick is showing a lot of it) is an indication of just how low political discourse in this country has sunk.","author":"Meyer London","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 14:21:43","modified":"2003-07-04 14:21:43","fileurl":""},{"id":69755,"heading":"revised cover from publisher","article":"<\/p>","author":"x","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/html","created":"2003-07-04 19:24:23","modified":"2003-07-04 19:24:23","fileurl":""},{"id":69778,"heading":"Desiree Coulter","article":"She always look so tight-lipped in her pictures.\r\nShe must have buck teeth to hide after decades of conservative c..k sucking.","author":"da pimp","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 22:15:19","modified":"2003-07-04 22:15:19","fileurl":""},{"id":69782,"heading":"Ann's widely respected","article":"Ann Coulter is widely respected. She's an attractive, intelligent, and successful woman who is much admired. \r\n\r\nAnn sets the standard for what a woman can become in our society if she works hard, has ability, and applies herself. She's the role model of choice for young girls everywhere.\r\n\r\nShe's also the counterbalance for losers like Hillary Clinton, Amy Goodman, and Katie Couric.\r\n\r\nHer books and her commentary leave liberals no place to hide. She exposes them for the losers that they are. It's pretty basic really. She's on target with her excellent journalism.","author":"Bush Admirer","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 22:25:53","modified":"2003-07-04 22:25:53","fileurl":""},{"id":69786,"heading":"Bush Admirer","article":""Ann Coulter is widely respected."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"She's an attractive, intelligent, and successful woman who is much admired."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation \r\n\r\n"Ann sets the standard for what a woman can become in our society if she works hard, has ability, and applies herself."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"She's the role model of choice for young girls everywhere."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"She's also the counterbalance for losers like Hillary Clinton, Amy Goodman, and Katie Couric."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation \r\n\r\n"Her books and her commentary leave liberals no place to hide."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"She's on target with her excellent journalism."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\nFor more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n","author":"Scottie","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 22:29:34","modified":"2003-07-04 22:29:34","fileurl":""},{"id":69809,"heading":"repost since you're slow, B.A.","article":"Can't you pick a conservative that's actually intelligent? I mean, Ann is a total nutcase. Reducing those that disagree with the "conservative" view to treasonous bastards (her basic argument) is not American, *and it's not conservative*. It's reactionary. It's as far on the radical extreme of the right as those anarchists and commies you hate. \r\n\r\nGood lord, one of these days maybe you'll get a grip and stop being such a polemic. Be a conservative. That's fine. But don't be an idiot. Ann's arguments are stupid. Period.\r\n","author":"x to B.A.","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-04 23:54:31","modified":"2003-07-04 23:54:31","fileurl":""},{"id":69923,"heading":"Coulter must be...","article":"limbaaahs satin sheet","author":"cuzin it","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-05 20:18:49","modified":"2003-07-05 20:18:49","fileurl":""},{"id":70049,"heading":"Bush Admirer","article":""Ann is brilliant and most of her observations resonate."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"If it's stupid arguments you're looking for then I'd suggest you read Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal. That's where you're going to find really really dumb and stupid arguments." \r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"Ann Coulter rocks!"\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\nFor more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n ","author":"Scottie","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-06 13:38:11","modified":"2003-07-06 13:38:11","fileurl":""},{"id":70226,"heading":"The insult","article":"If you can't make a case against Ann's well presented argument then why not just toss out an insult like you've done here Scottie?","author":"Bush Admirer","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-07 01:43:46","modified":"2003-07-07 01:43:46","fileurl":""},{"id":70229,"heading":"Who's America","article":"Why do the Neocons think that they can decide who or what America is. You know it was real Americans who fought against the Limbaugh's and Coulter's of their day durring the first gilded age in the early nineteenth century. These true patriots fought for things like the 40 hour work week. \r\n She's gone a bit too far with this attack, and it must be because the true Americans of today are fighting back against the ultra Rich and Corporate media. We must be having an impact even against their giant meda monopoly. \r\nAlso people know something is wrong when their retirement accounts are being robbed by corporate swindlers. This book is class war against anybody who speaks out against those like Grover Norquist who are tearing down the last bit of new deal services the Governent provided and making sure their version of America only serves the Ulra Rich and powerfull. \r\n ","author":"Wavemaster","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-07 02:13:55","modified":"2003-07-07 02:13:55","fileurl":""},{"id":70231,"heading":"Anne","article":""fake scottie" that is.\r\n\r\nSince I dont adress points like that unless i have somthing meaningful to say.\r\n\r\nI havent read Anne's book and talking about all democrats as traitors (if that is what she did) sounds a little over the top but with people on the left saying basically the same thing about the republicans its hard to get too upset over it.\r\n\r\nAnd as it happens this one here is a VERY WELL SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION.\r\n\r\n"If it's stupid arguments you're looking for then I'd suggest you read Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal. That's where you're going to find really really dumb and stupid arguments."","author":"Scottie","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-07 02:37:44","modified":"2003-07-07 02:37:44","fileurl":""},{"id":70530,"heading":"Scottie","article":"""fake scottie" that is."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"And as it happens this one here is a VERY WELL SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\n"If it's stupid arguments you're looking for then I'd suggest you read Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal. That's where you're going to find really really dumb and stupid arguments."\r\nUnsubstantiated Allegation\r\n\r\nFor more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","author":"Ted Thompson","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-08 11:49:42","modified":"2003-07-08 11:49:42","fileurl":""},{"id":70851,"heading":"hmm","article":""Unsubstantiated Allegation" \r\n Unsubstantiated Allegation ","author":"Scottie","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-09 04:49:55","modified":"2003-07-09 04:49:55","fileurl":""},{"id":70913,"heading":"To Scottie","article":"For more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies." \r\n\r\n","author":"Philosophy prof.","parent_id":69453,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-07-09 14:29:53","modified":"2003-07-09 14:29:53","fileurl":""}]}