Ann Coulter, Author of Treason (2003)

The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. 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. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis. As Whittaker Chambers said: "Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does."

At the time, half the country realized liberals were lying. But after a half century of liberal myth-making, even the disgorging of Soviet and American archives half a century later could not overcome their lies. In 1995, the U.S. government released its cache of Soviet cables that had been decoded during the Cold War in a top-secret undertaking known as the Venona Project. The cables proved the overwhelming truth of McCarthy's charges. Naturally, therefore, the release of decrypted Soviet cables was barely mentioned by the New York Times. It might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of "McCarthyism." They were not so innocent after all, it turns out.

Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imaginations. McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. He was tilting at an authentic communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the Democratic Party. The Democrats had unpardonably connived with the greatest evil of the 20th century. This could not be nullified. But liberals could at least hope to redeem the Democratic Party by dedicating themselves to rewriting history and blackening reputations. This is what liberals had done repeatedly throughout the Cold War. At every strategic moment this century, liberals would wage a campaign of horrendous lies and disinformation simply to dull the discovery the American people had made. They had gotten good at it.

There were, admittedly, a few rare and striking exceptions to the left's overall obtuseness to communist totalitarianism. John F. Kennedy's pronouncements on communism could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy. For all his flaws, Truman unquestionably loved his country. He was a completely different breed from today's Democrats. Through the years, there were various epiphanic moments creating yet more anti-communist Democrats. The Stalin-Hitler pact, Alger Hiss' prothonotary warbler, information about the purges and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" – all these had their effect.

But after World War II, the Democratic Party suffered a form of what France had succumbed to after World War I. The entire party had lost its nerve for sacrifice, heroism and bravery. Beginning in the '50s, there was a real battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. By the late '60s, the battle was over. The anti-communist Democrats had lost.

Source:"I Dare Call it Treason," Frontpagemag.com (June 26, 2003).

Thomas Reeves (Author of a biography of McCarthy)

In case you missed it, Ann Coulter, in her new book Treason, is calling McCarthyism a liberal myth and labelling Joe McCarthy a hero. The Far Right has gone off the cliff, folks. Arthur Herman's book on the Wisconsin Senator started this nonsense. My own biography, I contend modestly, needs to be studied by conservative journalists, along with the huge bibliography that documents McCarthyism fully.

Yes, the Venona Papers are important, but they, like the HUAC hearings on Hollywood, have nothing directly to do with McCarthy. Would that history were required in today's colleges and universities.

Source: Comment posted on the list run by Richard Jensen, conservativenet (July 1, 2003)

Andrew Sullivan

In [Ann] Coulter's world, there are two types of people: conservatives and liberals. These aren't groups of people with competing ideas. They are the repositories of good and evil. There are no distinctions among conservatives or among liberals. To admit the complexity of political discourse would immediately require Coulter to think, explain, argue. But why bother when you can earn millions insulting?

Here are a few comments about "liberals" that Coulter has deployed over the years: "Liberals are fanatical liars." Liberals are "devoted to class warfare, ethnic hatred and intolerance." Liberals "hate democracy because democracy requires persuasion and compromise rather than brute political force." Some of this is obvious hyperbole, designed for a partisan audience. Some of it could be explained as good, dirty fun. It was this formula that gained her enormous sales for her last book, "Slander," which detailed in sometimes hilarious prose, the liberal bias in much of American media. But her latest tome ups the ante even further. If biased liberal editors are busy slandering conservatives, liberals more generally are dedicated to the subversion of their own country. They are guilty of - yes - treason.

A few nuggets: "As a rule of thumb, Democrats opposed anything opposed by their cherished Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not like the idea of a militarily strong America. Neither did the Democrats!" Earlier in the same vein: "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant." And then: "The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. 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."

Coulter does not seek to complicate her view of liberals with any serious or lengthy treatment of the many Democrats and liberals who were ferociously anti-Communist. Scoop Jackson? Harry Truman? John F Kennedy? Lyndon Vietnam Johnson? She doesn't substantively deal with those Democrats today - from Senator Joe Lieberman to the New Republic magazine - who were anti-Saddam before many Republicans were. She is absolutely right to insist that many on the Left are in denial about some Americans' complicity in Soviet evil, the guilt of true traitors like Alger Hiss or the Rosenbergs, who helped Stalin and his heirs in their murderous pursuits. And part of the frustration of reading Coulter is that her basic causes are the right ones: the American media truly is biased to the left; some liberals and Democrats were bona fide traitors during the Cold War; many on the far left today are essentially anti-American and hope for the defeat of their country in foreign wars....

One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. "I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument." Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap."

Source: The London Sunday Times (July 5, 2003)

Joe Conason

"Slander" is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as "a false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed." The venerable American legal lexicon goes on to note that such defamatory words are sometimes "actionable in themselves, without proof of special damages," particularly when they impute "guilt of some offence for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the criminal courts; as to call a person a 'traitor.'"

So how appropriate it is that in the rapidly growing Ann Coulter bibliography, last year's bestselling "Slander" is now followed by "Treason," her new catalog of defamation against every liberal and every Democrat -- indeed, every American who has dared to disagree with her or her spirit guide, Joe McCarthy -- as "traitors." And like a criminal who subconsciously wants to be caught, Coulter seems compelled to reveal at last her true role model. (Some of us had figured this out already.)

She not only lionizes the late senator, whose name is synonymous with demagogue, but with a vengeance also adopts his methods and pursues his partisan purposes. She sneers, she smears, she indicts by falsehood and distortion -- and she frankly expresses her desire to destroy any political party or person that resists Republican conservatism (as defined by her).

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America," according to her demonology. "They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down." And: "Liberals relentlessly attack their country, but we can't call them traitors, which they manifestly are, because that would be 'McCarthyism,' which never existed." (Never existed? Her idol gave his 1952 book that very word as its title.) ...

The likelihood is that Coulter's many avid fans are as conveniently ignorant of the past as she seems to be. So the rubes who buy "Treason" will believe her when she accuses George Catlett Marshall, the great general who oversaw the reconstruction of Europe, of nurturing a "strange attraction" to "sedition" and of scheming to assist rather than hinder Soviet expansion.

Her duped readers will believe that Marshall and President Harry S. Truman opposed Stalin only because Republicans won the midterm elections in 1946. They probably won't know that Truman confronted the Soviets in the Mediterranean with a naval task force several months before Election Day; or that the new Republican majority cut Truman's requested military budget by $500 million as soon as they took over Congress in January 1947, nearly crippling the American occupation of Germany and Japan; or that Truman, Marshall and Dean Acheson had to plead with the isolationist Republican leadership to oppose Russian designs on Greece and Turkey.

Her deceptive style is exemplified in an anecdote she lifts from an actual historian and twists to smear Truman. She writes: "Most breathtakingly, in March 1946, Truman ostentatiously rebuffed Churchill after his famous Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri. Immediately after Churchill's speech, Truman instructed his Secretary of State Dean Acheson not to attend a reception for Churchill a week later in New York."

In that passage -- footnoted to James Chace's magisterial 1998 biography of Acheson -- Coulter demonstrates that she is both an intentional liar and an incompetent writer. The pages she cites from Chace explain quite clearly that Acheson (who was not then Secretary of State and would not be promoted to that office until 1949) was urged to avoid the New York reception by Secretary of State James Byrnes, not Truman. The British apparently didn't notice that "ostentatious rebuff," since they immediately invited Acheson and his wife to a cordial lunch with Churchill in Washington. And as for Truman, Chace notes that it was he who had invited Churchill to Missouri, his home state, to deliver the speech -- which the American president read in advance, assuring the former prime minister that his strong warning about communist intentions would "do nothing but good."

So replete is "Treason" with falsehoods and distortions, as well as so much plain bullshit, that it may well create a cottage industry of corrective fact-checking, just as "Slander" did last year. (The fun has already begun with Brendan Nyhan's devastating review on the Spinsanity Web site. So far the Spinsanity sages have found "at least five factual claims that are indisputably false" in "Treason," along with the usual Coulter techniques of phony quotation, misleading sourcing, and sentences ripped from context or falsely attributed.)

Such heavy-handed deception was precisely the sort of tactic employed by McCarthy himself against Acheson and all his other targets. In his book "McCarthyism: The Fight for America," for instance, he charged that the Truman aide had "hailed the Communist victory in China as 'a new day which has dawned in Asia.'" Of course, Acheson had neither said nor written anything of the kind.

To Coulter, McCarthy is simply a great man worthy of her emulation. In her alternate universe, he isn't the slimy traducer Americans have come to know and despise. He's bright, witty, warm-hearted and macho, a sincere farm boy who exposes the treasonous cowardice of the urbane Acheson, Marshall and other "sniffing pantywaists." She seems to regard him as kind of a Jimmy Stewart type, albeit with jowls and five o'clock shadow and a serious drinking problem.

And he never, ever attacked anyone who didn't deserve it.

"His targets were Soviet sympathizers and Soviet spies," Coulter proclaims without qualification. But elsewhere she says that he wasn't even really trying to find either communists or spies, but only seeking to expose "security risks" in government jobs. Whatever his mission, it was noble and succeeding admirably until 1954, when "liberals immobilized him with their Army-McCarthy hearings and censure investigation."

Actually, McCarthy was brought down by his own televised misconduct during those hearings -- and by the outrage not of Democrats but of Republicans, including President Eisenhower and a caucus of courageous GOP senators. (Among the latter was the current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush of Connecticut, whose vote to censure McCarthy is another little fact that Coulter forgets to mention.)

The truth is that some of McCarthy's targets were or had been communists -- and therefore by definition "sympathizers" of the Soviet Union -- but he never uncovered a single indictable spy. There had been dozens of Soviet agents in government before and during World War II. But those espionage rings had been broken up by the FBI well before McCarthy showed up brandishing a bogus "list" of 57 or 205 or 81 Communists in the State Department.

Yet the Wisconsin windbag amassed sufficient power for a time to destroy innocent individuals, most notably Owen Lattimore, described smirkingly by Coulter as McCarthy's "biggest star" and the man he once named as Stalin's "top espionage agent" in the United States. "Somewhat surprisingly," as Coulter is obliged to note, Lattimore's name has yet to be found in Moscow's excavated KGB archives or in the Venona cables decrypted by U.S. Army counterespionage agents. The dearth of evidence against Lattimore matters not at all to Coulter, however. Though the eminent China expert was neither a spy nor a communist, he certainly knew and worked with some communists -- and worst of all, he disagreed with the far right about U.S. policy toward China.

Source: Salon (July 4, 2003)

Related Links

• Rick Shenkman, "Remember Watergate?" (How some conservatives, including Ann Coulter, have rewritten the history of Watergate.)

• Dorothy Rabinowitz, "A Conspiracy So Vast" (Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2003).

• David Horowitz, "The Trouble with Treason” (frontpagemag.com, July 8, 2003).
  

• Brendan Nyhan, "Screed: With Treason, Ann Coulter once again defines a new low in America's political debate," (Spinsanity, June 30, 2003)
  

• Bryan Keefer, "Throwing the book at her: The bias Ann Coulter documents best may be her own (Salon, July 13, 2003).
  

jeff kane - 8/13/2006

i think ann coultier is crazy. she says such sarcastic things about liberals asif theyre evil beings. i think sometimes she forgets that america was built on democracy and capitalism. i dont think even china would be able too stand her.

Richard Charles Rawlings - 8/15/2004

"Slander" is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as "a false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed." The venerable American legal lexicon goes on to note that such defamatory words are sometimes "actionable in themselves, without proof of special damages," particularly when they impute "guilt of some offence for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the criminal courts; as to call a person a 'traitor.'" So how appropriate it is that in the rapidly growing Ann Coulter bibliography, last year's bestselling "Slander" is now followed by "Treason," her new catalog of defamation against every liberal and every Democrat -- indeed, every American who has dared to disagree with her or her spirit guide, Joe McCarthy -- as "traitors." And like a criminal who subconsciously wants to be caught, Coulter seems compelled to reveal at last her true role model. (Some of us had figured this out already.) A superficial fact check would instantly reveal Coulter for the deranged fanatic she is. The only justice in this is that the stresses of constant lying will lead to further unravelling of her personna. A mind this tormented and deranged won't last long. We've gone from slur, to insult to slander to libel. Next thing you'll hear form Coulter will be a Limbaugh-esque decrial of the 'left wing' trial lawyers who are 'hounding' her and attempting to silence her 'truth'. How will they do this? They will go to a court of law.

Because we live in a nation of laws, we can all do this. She will feel threatened because her tried and true methods; slander deceit and accusation, will fail. In her deranged state, she will redouble her efforts. At some point this will all be obvious. Why is hypocracy the drug of the far right? I mean, it's great if you can stop using coke and alcohol, but if you have to invent fantasy demons to attack, it's not any less delusional. Why do some neos insist on being delusional?

Richard Charles Rawlings - 8/15/2004

You probably don't think that the Washington Times is home to overpowering liberal bias. But according to Coulter's new research technique, you were dead wrong in that view. Here at THE HOWLER, we extended Coulter's important work; we went to NEXIS and we ran her phrases through the entire Washington Times archive too. And here are the results we got. You could have gotten them too:

Use of Coulter's key phrases in the Washington Times:
Far right wing: 37 uses
Far left wing: 7 uses
That's right, kids. The ratio in the Washington Times is quite close to the ratio found up in Gotham. And by the way, it took roughly forty seconds out of our day to conduct this startling research. Why didn't Coulter do the work too? Simple—she's running The Herd.

Idiots? Panderers? What is the term? What is the term you'd apply to the Coulters, to the Drudges, to the Sullivans too—to all the little Screaming Mimis who peddle this palaver all over town? Choose your poison, but make no mistake. You happen to live in extremely dumb times. Ann Coulter has a new way to prove it.

Master research: By the way, even when you engage in pseudo-research, you still have to clean up your findings. For example, here's one of the items which Coulter included. It concerns b-ball coach Larry Brown:

ARATON: Without a road victory in over a month, deadlocked at a game apiece with a vastly inferior opponent, the Magic trailed deep into the fourth quarter. Then Nick Anderson hit a 3-pointer from the far right wing. Brown remembered a defensive trap that caused a turnover, and the mixture of elation and relief on the Orlando players' faces as they huddled up for a few tender moments.
That may not be the "far right wing" you had in mind. F*ck it—she counted it anyway.

BK Hipsher - 7/19/2004

Just curious, do you always denegrate women by using phrases such as "PMS-induced hormonal rant" or did you save it only for a particular person such as Coulter? I am curious whether you would also freely describe a male who espoused similar views as "testosterone-induced hormonal rant". It isn't often one sees such blantant sexism even on the internet these days.

Ty - 7/19/2004

You are a jackass!

If you have ever read a book by Anne Coulter you will notice that EVERY STATEMENT she makes is backed up by a source or sources.

But libs do not believe in sourcing...just telling lies. Keep on hating America scumbag

ann - 7/19/2004

hi that was really good

J Smith - 7/19/2004

Hate to see what the PH D's at Harvard talk about.

Streaker - 1/7/2004

Was it not a combination of a lack of political will of incompetent Executive actions that lead to the loss of forward motion in Viet-Nam?

If you consider that we didn't just finish the job and napalm the shit out of them, and burn all the villages, and do the job like that, perhaps you have a point. Considering that it was a popular uprising, we had little chance of defeating it. They were defending their homeland. We were 'fighting' the Soviets there. What does it matter that it was defeated here 'at home'? Does that make it more or less admirable, or noble? What did it gain us? What did it gain you?

Streaker - 1/7/2004

Dorothy Rabinowitz was the name of the woman on Moyers' NOW program. I saw it referenced somewhere in these threads.

Streaker - 1/7/2004

Neither Coulter nor Carville are to be taken seriously, their public personas are caricatures.

It is interesting, however, that several conservatives distance themselves from Coulter. Check out the recent appearance on NOW (Bill Moyers) by a woman whose name I cannot now recall, with the WSJ, and her remarks about Coulter. This was about two or three weeks ago. There are a couple of others. You would not find this happening with Carville (Zell Miller doesn't count).

Ty - 12/31/2003

This website is nothing but a bunch of liberals bitching doing what they do best. LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE and LIE

Neil - 12/18/2003

Ann Coulter will comment derogatorily about somebody only after she has accurately quoted his own statements that make the point before she comments. For example, she might quote your comment about her failure as lover and then react something like this:

Clearly, Mr. Williams is intimidated by a woman who knows more about being a man than he does. I recognize a real man when I see him; which makes me a far better lover than Mr. Williams imagines in his fantasies. That bulge, Mr. Williams, proves you are a man; but it doesn’t prove you are manly.

(My comments are based on my own reading of Ann Coulter’s writing and may not reflect her actual thoughts.)

Jeremy Far - 12/18/2003

If every liberal was shot dead in this nation, it would be a great place to live. You people are fucking idiots. Thank you soooooo fucking much for Affirmative Action, Welfare, Secularism, Intollerance, Racism, Political Correctness, and Drunk Driving Ted fucking Kennedy.

Why don't you all go play hide and go fuck yourselves...

Selling the Individuals Soul - 11/23/2003

The current republucicans are trying to outspend the democrats, the democrats are preaching for controlled spending and beefing up national security. Both groups are posturing for endorsements of indentifiable groups, associations and others that can be bought through tax dollars. Which group really cares about the individual? Repubs care a little about economic rights, while libs seem to focus more on social rights, but when it comes down to it both just give lip service regarding individual rights, property rights, contract law and instead focus on democracy (mob) rule. On first casual appearance, repubs may have a little edge over the democrats on individual rights, but when it comes to vote buying they are the same. Why is it - year after year the national gov. budget always increases usually faster then inflation no matter which party is in control?

"We live in A FREE SOCIETY" neither party cares as they nibble away at our freedoms. Instead of building america up through advancing individual accomplishments, a growing mass of socialist are controlled by jealosy and want to tear apart the fabric which made this country great. Where in the constitution states that we are a Democracy? Both political parties chants that false chant!

Sad to see the amount of profanity hiding what could be intelligent discourse!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gail Price - 11/20/2003

Ann Coulter is a feminist: she is in her 40's, never married, highly educated, has no children and has a powerful job. Further, despite her advanced age, she keeps her hair quite long.

Sunman - 11/11/2003

For what it's worth to this debate:

Fast forward, back to the future, 1920's
The Thyssen/Flick Empire aka The USW/ United Steel Works were a steel/coal intrest located through out Germany and Poland in the 1920's. The Polish Govt. was threatening to take over the Flick opprations in Poland on the grounds of:
Fraudulent bookkeeping
Securities fraud
Tax evasion
Excessive borrowing

Hitler invaded Poland thus ending the conflict between the Polish govt.and Flicks opperations and started WWII. He destroyed the country/nation. The center of the opperations in Poland was in OSWIECIM, in the heart of a vast steel/coal producing region. Hitler's take over netted the placement of forced labor camps throughout the region inorder to exploit the vast resources necessary for the Varmarc.

One of these camps was AUSCHWITZ!


I guess the Q; is "Did Bush know what/how the resources were being obtained in poland?" If so Hes guilty of trading w/the enemy, Like Mark Rich. Let His Grandson give him a President's pardon like Clinton gave Rich and that should even the score.

Oxford 1

Yale/Bonesmen 1

J. Caramello - 10/16/2003

Impossible. Coultier is not allowed in the Peoples Republic of Northern California so it would not be possible for her to be in contact with Al Quada and the other useful idiots of the loony Left in power there.

mike salvi - 10/13/2003

boy, her book must have got your goat. i suspect, though, she's delighted by such a angry, wacky, reaction.

koussa - 10/1/2003

je suis tutilare de diplome de de génie de procéde et chimie
option raffinage de pétrole
bac +3
je charch d' emploi de cétte spécialite de pays américa usa

mersi

Alec - 9/29/2003

go to hell bitch

russ - 7/27/2003

Mr. Levy says: "Coulter's defense of Joe McCarthy needs to placed along several similar revisions of Recent American history put forth over the past several years, most prominently Pat Buchanan's argument that the United States should not have gone to war with Germany and Rush Limbaugh's insistence that the U.S. did not lose the war in Vietnam"

Hmmm, its apparent that Mr. Levy has forgotten just where the Viet-Nam war was lost...

It wasn't lost in the jungles and rice paddies of Viet-Nam but on the streets of THIS country... Was it not a combination of a lack of political will of incompetent Executive actions that lead to the loss of forward motion in Viet-Nam?

Maybe this sounds like a trite splitting of hairs but the difference is really quite important...

anncoulterisanidiot - 7/23/2003

Tell that to my uncle who was a republican all his life and his REPUBLICAN boss uprooted the business and moved it to Mexico...left or right...I tend to be suspicious of ALL true believers. Ann Coulter is an extremist of the worst kind, just like some of the wierdo's from extreme left..why believe ANYONE who INSISTS that they are right ALL the time???

anncoulterisanidiot - 7/23/2003

Ann Coulter’s Treason: Chapter 3
By Scott Spicciati Editor | Treason Book Review
July 06, 2003

No Communists Here!

In chapter 3, Coulter defends Senator McCarthy from his many critics while at the same time labeling all liberals of the 1950’s Communists. But by this point in the book, now on page 36, the sources Coulter uses in her arguments have begun to get stale and repetitive. Her number one source of evidence against the supposedly Communist liberals is the Venona Project and Venona Papers. But according to Coulter, “there was lots of evidence.” What evidence does she mean you ask? “There were, for example, the detailed accounts given in sworn testimony by various ex-Communists like Wittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, and Louis Budenz.” Even though Coulter’s entire book is devoted to exposing the horrific beast that dwells in the mind of every Communist, the best she can use as “evidence” against Communists are the testimonies from, well, Communists.

You want more evidence? “There were Chambers’s Pumpkin Papers.” Again, using a Communist to attack Communists. “There were Soviet defectors who brought reams of KGB documents with them, identifying Soviet agents in America.” More Communists. “There were confessions of arrested spies..” An entire paragraph of what Coulter calls evidence against liberal Communism is nothing more than the word of Communists. Her only other bit of evidence is the Soviet cables, and as she admits, “Only a small number of the intercepted Soviet cables have been decoded.”

Coulter’s exaggerations get extreme when she compares the 1950’s to today’s time in several examples. “The American Communist Party was linked to Stalin like an al-Qaeda training camp to Osama bin Laden.” An observer might note the slight difference that the American Communist Party is not and has never been notorious for blowing up American buildings and embassies.

But back to all those Communists, excuse me; ex-Communists, the individuals Coulter considers “evidence” against liberals she calls current-Communists. To Coulter, they are what proves that the left had an anti-American agenda. But the democrats didn’t allow such besmirching. And because they defended themselves, Coulter got pissed. “..The left smeared ex-Communist informers as lunatics and perverts...The (The Nation) magazine called Bentley ‘an alcoholic who embraced both fascism and communism before she turned professional and converted to Catholicism’.” Readers at this point may now be saying how dare those democrats try to discredit ex-Communists, calling them perverts and alcoholics.

Coulter doesn’t mention it, but some of the so-called ex-Communists attacked by the left because they attacked them were in fact perverts and alcoholics. Elizabeth Bentley was an alcoholic throughout her life, and often displayed her drunken behavior in public. At a New Year's Eve party in the home of a fellow exchange student, she challenged other women "to pull down your pants and have your partner take you right here on the floor." She was characterized by her own friends as a "leech," a "bum," a "lush," and, inevitably, a "slut." She was an enthusiast for spontaneous sex in the years before oral contraceptives, and there were rumors that she had some illegal abortions.1 And Coulter says liberals were wrong for attacking Bentley’s credit.

Now off that subject, but next in order in chapter 3, on page 39 Coulter admits that liberals are not self-destructive despite several times in her many writings that liberals are going nowhere and have no power. But she states in her book, “The unveiling of Venona was as close to Judgment Day for liberals as we’ll ever get in this life.” So are liberals going to be around for awhile? That’s a good thing for Coulter, they produce her paychecks.

Coulter then makes a list of analogies that would have made Bush’s SAT scores look good. “To understand how deep were the Soviet tentacles in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, try to imagine a parallel universe today...Paul Wolfowitz, Bush’s deputy secretary of defense, would be a member of al-Qaeda taking orders from Osama bin Laden.” She compares Wolfowitz to Alger Hiss, who wasn’t the deputy secretary of defense, but the assistant to the secretary of state. Hiss, who got an entire chapter dedicated to him, was an assistant to the secretary of state, and Coulter compares his career to Wolfowitz taking orders from bin Laden. She also compares “Bush’s Republican successor” to Harry Truman, who was a democrat.

I would have liked to have seen a wider range of sources outside of the Venona Project and the shady ex-Communists. Chapter 4 is dedicated entirely to Senator Jospeh McCarthy, and how his name was slandered beyond repair by ruthless liberals.

Sources:

BobL - 7/23/2003

Doesn't it suck when you've lead your entire life thinking the Democrats were the "Good Guys" but finally realize all along it's the Republicans that actually care about the working American!

LOL

Peter B. Levy - 7/18/2003

Coulter's defense of Joe McCarthy needs to placed along several similar revisions of Recent American history put forth over the past several years, most prominently Pat Buchanan's argument that the United States should not have gone to war with Germany and Rush Limbaugh's insistence that the U.S. did not lose the war in Vietnam. Along a somewhat similar vein, nearly all conservatives are developing a totally uncritical view of Ronald Reagan--something they would never tolerate about liberal presidents, from FDR to LBJ--and a demonization of the Clintons. Given Orwell's warning that he who controls the present controls the past and that he who controls the past controls the future, this revisionism of the past needs to be taken seriously and challenged in every possible way.

J Mitchell - 7/16/2003

The verdict on McCarthy rests on his slander against Marshall. Marshall was the big fish McCarthy tried to land, he didn't do it. McCarthy's pamphlet against Marshall is filled with distortions and lies. Coulter apparently attacked Marshall for being a wimp but history won't support that either.

The story not told was how cozy the mainstream of Republicanism was with McCarthy. Taft, Luce and the China Lobby couldn't accept Stilwell's condemnation of Chiang and since Marshall couldn't save Chiang they blamed Marshall for giving China over to the commies.

Now let's talk about the Republicans and Mussolini or Smedley Butler's rumored coupe in '33. . .

NYGuy - 7/16/2003

P. Bu$h = Nazi Profiteer

Repeat after me:

1) Doing business with Nazi Germany was wrong.
A. The whole world did it, or didn't you know.

2) Doing business with Nazi Germany was against the law.
A. It was not against the law. In 1942 the APC seized the assets of over 5,000 companies that were owned by our enemies, including Germany.

3) Prescott Bush did business with Nazi Germany.
A. Prescott Bush was a director. Directors do not do the day-to-day business it is the management who overseas the activities. The management team was:
B. E. Roland Harriman – Chairman, 3,991 shares, owns 99.78%
Cornelis Lievense -President owns 4 shares, or 0.10%
Harold D Pennington - Treasurer 1 share, or 0.03%.

4) The fact that others, including some Democrats, also did business with Nazi Germany does not excuse Prescott Bush.

A. Since Bush was an employee, and over 5,000 alien property vesting orders were sent out, you are accusing perhaps 1,000,000 loyal Americans of doing business with Nazi Germany. Of course many of these people fought against Germany and some were KIA. I find your branding of these loyal Americans disgraceful. Have you no shame.

I think if you still feel strongly about this subject you should contact the DNC and complain about Roosevelt, Harriman’s friend, and the Harriman family etc.

Finally,

I appreciate your respect for me.

"You're a absolute, reprehensible piece of garbage."

You could have said worse

P. Bu$h = Nazi Profiteer - 7/16/2003

Who doesn't have either a living brain cell or a shred of decency.

First you insist that UBC shares were never seized, now you defend UBC's Nazi ties because other companies were also seized.

We're talking about Prescott Bush and the Bush family. And guess what? His assets were seized for his financial relationship with Nazis, who at the time were killing Americans and prosecuting a genocide of all European Jews. It was against the law to do business with Nazi Germany, but UBC, with the knowledge and participation of Prescott Bush, did anyway. Is that OK with you?

OF COURSE there were Democrats whose assets were also seized. OF COURSE Harriman was the biggest UBC shareholder.

Know what that makes Harriman and other Democrats who did business with the enemy? Nazi profiteers, just like good ole Prescott Bush.

People with integrity are capable of condemning Nazi profiteers and sympathizers, regardless of political affiliation. That includes people like Joseph Kennedy. It also includes Prescott Bush.

Repeat after me:
1) Doing business with Nazi Germany was wrong.
2) Doing business with Nazi Germany was against the law.
3) Prescott Bush did business with Nazi Germany.
4) The fact that others, including some Democrats, also did business with Nazi Germany does not excuse Prescott Bush.

Can you do that? Or are you so fucking warped that you'll find a way to excuse ANY action by someone with the last name "Bush," no matter how immoral.

NYGuy - 7/16/2003

Let us see. Now how do we distrube the profits. And what do those people like the Chairman, President and Treaurer do? Oh there is the power behind the throne, Prescott Bush. Why he owns a whole 0.03% of the company.

%
Shares Ownership
E. Roland Harriman - Chairman 3,991 99.78%
Cornelis Lievense -President 4 0.10%
Harold D Pennington - Treasurer 1 0.03%
Ray Morris 1 0.03%
Prescott S. Bush 1 0.03%
H. J. Kowenhoven 1 0.03%
Johann G Groeninger 1 0.03%
4,000 100.00%

Meanwhile, over 5,000 companies got alien property vesting orders with the same boilerplate. Never knew we had so many people collaborating with the Nazis. Someone should write a book on this group.

Question: How come when you search the web there are no articles on Bunny Harriman Hitler and the Nazis. Oh, I guess his son was never President.

Arch Stanton - 7/15/2003

The unsophisticated capitalizes the boilerplate of a statutory enemy alien property vesting order.

NYC_Historian - 7/15/2003

It lists seven (7) individuals - UBC shareholders - not 5,000. Prescott Bush was one of those seven shareholders. After listing the shareholders, Vesting Order 248 goes on to state that those who held stock in UBC "held for the benefit of Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart, N.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands, which bank is owned or controlled by members of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and/or Hungary,

"is property of nationals, and REPRESENTS OWNERSHIP OF SAID BUSINESS ENTERPRISE WHICH IS A NATIONAL, OF A DESIGNATED ENEMY COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES (Germany and/or Hungary); (emphasis added)

"(b) That the property described as follows:

"All right, title, interest and claim of any name or nature whatsoever of the aforesaid Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart, and August Thyssen-Bank, Berlin, Germany, and each of them, in and to all indebtedness, contingent or otherwise and whether or not matured, owing to them, or each of them, by said Union Banking Corporation, including by not limited to all security rights in and to any and all collateral for any or all of such indebtedness and the right to sue and collect such indebtedness.

"IS AN INTEREST IN THE AFORESAID BUSINESS ENTERPRISE HELD BY NATIONALS OF AN ENEMY COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES, AND ALSO IS PROPERTY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY NATIONALS OF A DESIGNATED ENEMY COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES (Germany and/or Hungary); (emphasis added)

"and determining that to the extent that any or all of such nationals are persons not within a designated enemy country, THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRES THAT SUCH PERSONS BE TREATED AS NATIONALS OF THE AFORESAID DESIGNATED ENEMY COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES (Germany and/or Hungary), and taken all action, after appropriate consultation and certification, required by said executive order or Act or otherwise, and DEEMING IT NECESSARY IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, hereby vests such property in the Alien Property Custodian..." (emphasis added).

Now, it's difficult to determine what message your childish rants are trying to convey, but you keep bleating "put up or shut up." Above is a verbatim excerpt of Vesting Order 248. Nobody on this board, including me, has made any accusation against Prescott Bush. What I have done is merely report history. The accusation was made by the U.S. government in 1942.

Either you haven't read the history on this issue before and don't care, or you have read it and choose to pretend it didn't happen. You can rant and rave all day and call hurl every juvenile insult you can think of, none of it will change these simple fact:

*In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized the shares of UBC for its financial ties to Nazi Germany, and Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of UBC at the time.

If you take issue with the facts here, don't bleat at me. Take it up with the Justice Department. It's the U.S. government that made the accusation. If you think UBC and its directors were falsely accused, you can pursue your personal crusade to clear Prescott Bush's with the federal government.

I have no need to get the last word; you seem to attribute your own hysterical and childish impulses to those who report information you find difficult or impossible to process.

You can have the last word here. But if you continue to claim that the findings reported in Vesting Order 248 are false, it's now your turn to "put up or shut up." I'd be surprised if you were capable of either.

NYGuy - 7/15/2003

NYC Historian,

Let me be clear. I said you and your friends are phonies. You make irresponsible claims that over 5,000 loyal Americans are collaborators with the Nazis and Hitler. You never provide any proof of your outrageous allegations.

You don't know how I got to 5,000? Just proves you don't know what you are saying when you refer to Vesting Orders and say loyal Americans are helping Hitler.

As I predicted earlier, you all have a childish mentality and will continue to cry trying to get your way. You also want to have the last word.

we are not your parents and don't have much respect for what I believe is willful dishonesty.

Put up or shut.

Of course you don't know what that means. You don't know how to behave in the adult world. You are talking to people who have many advanced degrees and you think we should all believe you because mommy and daddy used to hang on to your every word.

Grow up and KEEP ON WALKING.

NYC_Historian - 7/15/2003

The only thing Goldfinger said, and that I repeated, is that the U.S. government seized UBC for the bank's financial ties to Nazi Germany while Prescott Bush was a director. We both cited primary sources for this statement. For some reason, this provokes you to throw a 3-year-old's tantrum. Try sticking with the fact both of us cited.

Are you saying that the U.S. never seized the assets of UBC under the Trading With the Enemy Act while Prescott Bush was a UBC director? This never happened?

It that seriously your position?

NYGuy - 7/14/2003

NYC Historian,

Jacob said:

But since you insist on pretending there was no Bush financial connection with the Nazis during World War II, it should interest you that on October 20, 1942, the US Alien Property Custodian, under the "Trading With the Enemy Act," seized the shares of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder. Prescott Bush specifically was charged with "running Nazi front groups in the United States."

NYGuy

Now you and Jacob have been talking out of both sides of your mouth: First you say your your proof is a primary source, see Vesting order 248. That does not work, so you then say your proof is from secondary sources. But Bill Heuisler destroys that thinking. Now you go back to primary sources which have already been discredited. You have no place to go, and nothing to say. But, in your ignorance you will charge blindly ahead.

First you don't even know what a vesting order is.
Second it was not a criminal investigation and no legal charges of collaborating with the enemy were issued by the vesting orders.
Third thousands of vesting orders were issued after we entered into war with Germany and Japan. Was every American a collaborator?

So once again you prove youself a phoney with nothing to say. Vesting orders show no evidence that Bush or others did anything illegal, nor does it show that they, or any other Americans, were charged with "running Nazi front groups in the United States." Your efforts are just cheap ploys to smear the reputation of thousands of loyal Americans.

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about, that is why you change your story every post and fail to show any proof for the outrageous, hateful comments you make.

It is my opinion you, Jacob, Kriz and the others are a bunch of phony propagandists. I guess you believe what your parents told you that you are so cute and bright.

But then you decided to come on the big boy board. Here the rules are a little different, "put up or shut up." Dishonesty is not what this board is all about, so go back and let your parents stroke you about how wonderful you are.

Remember: Money talks and BS walks.

Why don't you guys just take a hike and stop embarrising yourselves and betraying how phony and dishonest you are being on this topic.

JUST KEEP ON WALKING

NYC_Historian - 7/14/2003

The source is Vesting Order 248 (1942). Not LaRouche, not Hatfield, not any partisan hack representing any point of view.

The source cited by Goldfinger is the primary source, the federal government document that laid out the charges. And he told you were you could get a copy for just a dime.

You two could throw your tantrums till you're blue in the face, it won't change the facts.

Bill Heuisler - 7/14/2003

First, being afraid to use your real name makes some readers question your courage, conviction and sincerity.

To support your hate-Bush position, you write:
"one does not have to rely upon the questionable pseudoscholarship of a Lyndon H. LaRouche partisan to examine the evidence of Bush's treachery."

But you produce a list of undependable fever-swamp kooks:
LaRouche's follower, W.G. Tarpley
Convicted murder-for-hire felon, J.H. Hatfield
Guerilla News Network conspiracy guru, Christopher Simpson

And your primary source, Loftus, admits Prescott Bush owned only one share in the Harriman Bank, and further admits the German connection was severed as the war began.

Do conspiracy-theorists enjoy looking foolish?
Bill Heuisler

NYGuy - 7/14/2003

As predicted these unamerican hate mongers are now regrouping, rewriting their original script and like little children who want to have the last word coming out of the woodwork with their newly made up names. Kriz and his group have been well documented before and thier rabid hatred and unsubstantiated attacks have been noted before. As Kriz said, "this is blood sport." That is the mentality of a crazed warrior not the mentality of educated people who rely on facts and proof for their debate.

This is still the same old BS. They have made a charge against all loyal Americans which they could not substantiate. They have been repeatedly challenged to put up or shut up. They can not prove their case but their hatred of Bush pushes them to continue in their childish game. If they can have the last word with a malicious headline they figure everyone who reads HNN is stupid and will believe their hate filled innuendoes.

As predicted these hate mongers have once again gone back to their leaders and come up with the "bait and switch" technique to try and fool the readers. The topic starts with Ann C, but their true hatred for Bush, and other loyal Americans they have maligned is in the headline.

Originally the proof of Bush and other loyal Americans being traitors was said to be in the government publications. Remember Goldfinger's post for government documents. Still trying to weasel their way out they now name books of false accusers like them, but we still have nothing to show for what is being proved.
Why? Because their is no proof.

This won't stop this hate filled unamerican group from reformulated their attack and trying again.

That you can take to the bank.

What a great country. Even our enemies have freedom.

Anarchteacher - 7/14/2003

Gentlemen, this conversation has strayed considerably from the original question of Ann Coulter's veracity and credibility. I have read her new book, Treason, and found her wanting in both. While applauding her vicious, take-no-prisoners war on the craven elites of the Liberal Establishment, her careless, shoot-at-anything-that-moves targeting makes her fevered, PMS-induced hormonal rant worthless. For an assortment of more scholarly reliable investigations on the topics she raised, please consult my Amazon.com Listmaina! booklists -- Treason, Treachery, and Traitors: You Examine The Evidence -- Treason, Or How To Build Your Own Enemy -- Onward Armchair Soldiers, Neocon War Against The World -- and Conservatism: The CIA's Phony Movement.

As to Prescott Bush and his alleged Nazi financial connections: one does not have to rely upon the questionable pseudoscholarship of a Lyndon H. LaRouche partisan to examine the evidence of Bush's treachery. The highly acclaimed international best-seller, The Secret War Against The Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People, by John Loftus and Mark Aarons, lays out the evidence on pages 357 to 365. Also recommended related sources are Christopher Simpson's brilliant The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century; and Charles Higham's pioneering Trading With The Enemy: An Expose' of The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949.

Josh Greenland - 7/14/2003

I think you've mischaracterized the articles I've posted, and while you've continually asked for statistics, you've ignored at least one that made a valid point against Moore's claims, and haven't provided any yourself. I invite others to look at the articles that I've posted URLs to and decide for themselves what they think of your dismissals of them, and of Moore's truthfulness.

For the record, I agree that the US is a much more violent place than Canada, but find your assertion that a supposed American love of "the gun" "is closely related to this fact" highly debatable. (I strongly suspect that neither of us will be able to convince the other of his rightness in these matters.)

Bill Heuisler - 7/14/2003

Mr. Goldfinger,
Be careful calling people morons, they might find out your source for the Prescott Bush story is a toady of Lyndon LaRouche named Tarpley who once wrote a particularly bad book.

Tarpley, was an employee of LaRouche for twenty or thirty years, and is known mainly for his ineptitude. For instance, he tried to smear Prescott Bush with connections to a Bank that did business with Germany, but he only succeeded in smearing a revered elder of the Democrat Party, Averill Harriman.

Now the facts: (Look them up under Harriman + UBC on Google)
Union Banking Corporation was owned by the Harriman family. William Averill Harriman was director (with nearly 4000 shares). At the time Tarpley questions, Averill was a close friend of President Roosevelt - appointed as War Aid Rep. to Britain in 1941 and Ambassador to the USSR in 1943. He was later a special assistant to President Truman. So, Goldfinger, how does Prescott Bush (with 1 share of UBC at the time) become the villain?

Would the US Government charge Bush with a crime and then appoint the major shareholder an ambassador? Who is the moron here? That you actually believe such flimsy stories from such readily impeachable people and then list them for argument on a history site is truly pathetic. At least read your own damn sources before embarrassing yourself in the future.
Bill Heuisler

NYGuy - 7/13/2003

NYC Historian,

Go home and have your mother burp you. Who do you think you are talking to your parents who thing you and Jacob are genuises. In the real real world you are just a bunch of irresponsible little children who were told how smart you are. Well, you aren't.

You and Jacob enter this board with no evidence and say, My mommy thought I was so cute and they applauded everything I said, so you have to accept my conclusion that a bunch of Americans patriots were Naxi sypathizers.

I did not come from that background and as I said, "Money talks and BS walks". If you have somethng to say that demeans an entire group of Americans than I believe it is up to you to prove your case.

If we accept what you and Jacob are saying than we must accept that those people who worked for GAF and the other German Chemical companies, and were KIA defending this country are traitors.

I for one am not ready to accept such juvenile, unproven comments from a couple of pampered brats whose parents probably hung on every word they uttered.

Grow up and realize you have to prove yourself as a man. If you want to condemn people don't hide under your parent skirt and say, "It is someone else's responsibility to prove my irresponsible comments.":

You also have failed to back up what you say. In the old neighborhood we would say:

"MONEY TALKS AND BS WALKS. PUT UP OR SHUT UP."

If you can't act like a man/women than go back and get some comfort from your parents, just don't think the entire world is as stupid as they are.

Fools like you are what makes me proud of this country. Thank god you were not alive during the real troubles this country faced.

My advice to you is "keep on walking"

And get another handle, you insult the firemene, policemen, Port Authority and all the other heros of 9/11. They weren't a bunch of cheap shot artists, they were the pride of NYC and of our country.

You have nothing to say and are just part of the welfare state that enables people like yourself to live off others.

I correctly predicted that Jacob and other could not prove what they are saying. Both of you have proved me corred. And, since you can not back up and prove your outrageous assertions, you will continue to act like little kids, "Mommy, Daddy, it wasn't my fault. They did not think I was as smart as you told me I was."

Grow up.

NYC_Historian - 7/13/2003

Seems to me Goldfinger has done nothing more than state a few basic, irrefutable facts. And when you protested, he gave you the source and directed you to a place you could see for yourself.

Prescott Bush - specifically, by name - was charged with "running Nazi front groups in the United States." Those aren't Goldfinger's words. You'd know that if you did look it up.

Since you don't have the facts on your side here, have the decency to admit as much. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to disregard facts that tend not to support that opinion.

NYGuy - 7/13/2003

Jacob,

You made the charges and now you can't back them up. In the old neighborhood we had an expresssion for people like you,

"MONEY TALKS AND BS WALKS. PUT UP OR SHUT UP"

You are right about not engaging in further debate because you have lost.

Keep on walking.

Jacob Goldfinger - 7/13/2003

Following my policy of not getting into pissing contests with morons, I will not be participating in this discussion after this post.

Since you are either unwilling or incapable of looking up facts, or distinguishing fact from opinion, here's where to get the information you lack.

For just ten cents ($0.10) you can get a copy of the summary of Vesting Order 248 (1942) from:
The Federal Register
Washington, DC
Web: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/
Metro stop: Union Station

J Lee Green - 7/13/2003

Hi Ann. I have to tell you that I respect everything (that I know of) that you support. It's so important to have women ("in today's beautiful world")that are straight minded and realize the threat that liberals present. I live in Arizona and feel that the time is coming for a change of thinking. I don't like, and many I know, paying property taxes, federal taxes (*not* including tax for the military), etc... What I'd like to do is start all over again, if you know what I mean...! Anyway, sooner or later it will happen(hopefully sooner). Ann, keep up the good work, Lee.

NYGuy - 7/12/2003

Jacob your headline was:

Please refrain from commenting on topics about which you know nothing.

AND ADDED:

Of course, if everyone took that wise advice most of those responding to HNN articles wouldn't. Which would be nice.

But since you insist on pretending there was no Bush financial connection with the Nazis during World War II, it should interest you that on October 20, 1942, the US Alien Property Custodian, under the "Trading With the Enemy Act," seized the shares of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder. Prescott Bush specifically was charged with "running Nazi front groups in the United States."

NYGuy

From what you have presented I agree with your headline, Jacob: “Please refrain from commenting on topics about which you know nothing”, and for which you provide misleading information.

First all this garbage about Bush has been developed since his son and grandson were Presidents. Most similar claims have only been made in the past 2-4 years. This just another case of Anti-Bush politics and their use of dirty tricks. Even those spreading this BS get confused and forget if it was UBC or Brown Brothers Harriman, and other significant details or background on this period. They can’t even get the story straight.

But let us start from the beginning;

1) The Trading With the Enemy Act (October 6, 1917). It begins with: (b)(1) During a time of war…..
2) The Act goes on to give President certain rights regarding foreign property in the U. S.
3) An Executive order of July 6, 1942, defined in detail the powers and duties of the new “Office of Alien Property Custodian” (APC) and clarified the distinction between its authority and that of the Secretary of Treasury in relation to alien property. The order gave to the Secretary of the Treasury authority over foreign-owned properties that constituted general purchasing power and required no active management, such as cash, bullion, bank deposits, and securities. To the Custodian it gave authority over types of foreign-owned property that were productive resources requiring active management, such as business enterprises, patents, copyrights, trademarks, and ships

Doesn’t sound as scary when the facts are known. The Treasury had control over financial assets such as UBC, not APC as Jacob claims.

Thus you can see that Jacob’s statement that Prescott Bush specifically was charged with "running Nazi front groups in the United States." is not legally true, merely someone’s opinion. Neither Bush, the controlling Directors and shareholders, nor anyone else was legally charged with anything. It is all innuendo and misleading facts. Nice wordsmithing, but still inaccurate and untrue.

What is always so amusing is that these political hacks never give out what Prescott Bush’s true ownership was in these companies, since it was so miniscule that he was not a controlling partner nor a controlling shareholder, merely another employee.

But, getting back to what I said on my prior post. I was talking about the APC actions, not the Treasury actions, which confused Jacob. As indicated, under this Act the Custodian handled real assets, such as the heavy investment the Germans had in Chemical plants in the U. S. Perhaps the most famous was General Aniline and Film, which was one of the first produces of photographic film in the U. S. Their assets include a photographic film plant in Binghamton, NY and a major chemical plant at Linden, NJ. My point was that thousands of Americans worked in these and other German chemical plants, and under Jacob's definition could be charged with “running Nazi front groups in the United States." This is how ridiculous this charge is about Bush. The APC takes over foreign property when the U. S. is at War with that nation or for other reasons. It is not an indictment of illegal behavoir or treason on those running, or having a financial interest in thre operations.

Jacob writes:

As the saying goes, you can look it up. I suggest you do.

NYGuy

Here is the key to what a phony topic this Bush thing is. He won’t produce it but challenges others to “look it up.”

All I can say good luck, but you will never find it”

“WHAT JACOB SAYS DOES NOT EXIST.” It is all innuendo and wishful thinking. But they never give up so you will see them attempt again with a new script.







NYGuy
October 20, 1942, the US Alien Property Custodian,

under the "Trading With the Enemy Act,
I said that there were many properties seized under the "Trading With The Enemy Act". According to you there were millions of Americans who were traders based upon this type of seizure.

So you is your point. Now, you bring up a different topic.

Jacob

You say that: "Prescott Bush specifically was charged with "running Nazi front groups in the United States."

Then you add:

"As the saying goes, you can look it up. I suggest you do."

NYGuy

If you feel so strong about this Nazi support why not let the world know the truth. You say this was a corporation with directors and shareholders. Then you are suggesting there was this group of Nazi collaborators who participated in this traitorous behavoir. Since in corporate structure we have more than one dirctor, a management team and many shareholders, one would expect that you would be able to supply the charges against Prescott, the other directors, the management team and the list of shareholders. Evidently you can't prove your case so you try to use a clever deception which implies we should find the damaging evidence, because like the Iraqi's you are not sure Hitler is dead and your life is at risk if you present any proof.

This scam on Prescott is just undergoing a new rewrite. It used to be that Prescott worked for Averill Harriman who was the largest shareholder in BBH. Since that fraud did not work you are going to try to get away with a new story.

As I said, Germany was the largest chemical company in the world and those U. S. operations were seized under the

Jacob Goldfinger - 7/12/2003

Of course, if everyone took that wise advice most of those responding to HNN articles wouldn't. Which would be nice.

But since you insist on pretending there was no Bush financial connection with the Nazis during World War II, it should interest you that on October 20, 1942, the US Alien Property Custodian, under the "Trading With the Enemy Act," seized the shares of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder. Prescott Bush specifically was charged with "running Nazi front groups in the United States."

The UBC was established specifically to send American dollars to Germany to finance the reorganization of German industry under the Nazis. UBC financed, among other companies, the German Steel Trust (which supplied iron and explosives to the German military) and the Silesian-American Corporation (managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker), which supplied coal to the Nazis and was seized by the U.S. government on November 17, 1942.

As the saying goes, you can look it up. I suggest you do.

NYGuy - 7/11/2003

Ah Ha,

Now we are getting to the bottom of this great "right wing" conspiracy that nearly put Hitler in power in the U.S.

Kriz
"Being the managing partner means Mr. Bush is even more culpable, given that he must have had direct working knowledge of the sleazy schemes."

NYGuy

Yes, yes I see your point. Others were putting these "sleazy schemes" together and Bush knew. So we have probably another 100-200 people involved.

But he does not stop their.

Kriz

"In any case, that Prescott Bush helped fund the Nazi war machine is indisputable. Why were the assets of Union seized if they were not culpable?"

NYGuy,

Now I see where we are going. Before the second WW, the germans were the largest chemical producers in the world, particularly in organic chemistry and and dyes for textiles, two major U. S. industries at the time. As such they were hiring thousands of Americans to produce and sell their products, therefore, there were thousands of American workers who were helping fund the Nazi war machine. Brillant.

Kriz

"Once again, the arguments of NYGuy consist of personal attacks and he does nothing to refute my assertions which are that the Bush clan is the most corrupt, perfidious bunch of slimeballs in American political history and the fact that they are not all doing hard time in Fort Leavenworth is a testament both to the right-wing propaganda machine they control, as well as to the stupidity and gullibility of the American people at large. I offer NYGuy as a living example....."

NYGuy

Kriz is at work so he could not get all his ideas out. What he meant to say, considering most Americans were German sympathizer, is:

"my assertions which are that the Bush clan,(and all those other Americans who aid Bush and Hitler) are the most corrupt, perfidious bunch of slimeballs in American political history and the fact that they are not all doing hard time in Fort Leavenworth is a testament both to the right-wing propaganda machine they control, as well as to the stupidity and gullibility of the American people at large. I offer NYGuy as a living example....."


NYGuy,

Hillary talked about the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy". I always wondered how that started. Now a great and scholarly historian has shed light on this subject. There were all those thousands of American who supported, and worked for the Hitler regime in the German plants that were seized. No doubt all right wingers. This is an amazing revalation since at that time the chemicals and textiles were even larger than Steel, and two of the biggest industries in the U. S. I would guess employing perhaps 15-25% of our workers.

And, "Being the managing partner means Mr. Bush is even more culpable, given that he must have had direct working knowledge of the sleazy schemes that were funding the Nazi war machine.

What the hell are the rest of you historians doing sitting on your duffs. This is a great part of American history suitable for many PhD. disertations and no one knows about it.

Thank you Kriz, you are a great inspriation to the history profession, and I am sure they are happy for your insight.

NYGuy - 7/11/2003

Joey,

"And of course it's true that many supposed conservatives such as W, Cheney et al , have done much harm to America in the course of their self-enrichment scams. Fair enough to call them traitors."

I thought it was your "hippie" friends from the Woodstock days who were gong to save the world and that were running Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom, etc. And of course the head of the DNC when he made a "Hillary size" investment in his friend's firm, Global Crossing and became a multi-millionaire.

One thing in Prescott's favor, when he was down on Wall Street a man's word was his bond and most of the Street existed on trust. That was true until the new me generation became a bunch of prostitues, "Business is Busines and love is BS." Seems we have not made much of a dent in poverty with this new breed, and decency has been translated into anything goes, or its only sex. But, these are the people who want to run the world.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

Stephen Kriz - 7/11/2003

What is knew [sic]?

And you accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about? Puh-leeze!!!

Thank you to Mr. Telford for clarifying my comment about Prescott Bush's role in Union Banking Corp. and BBH. I am posting from work and as a result, I am working from memory, which is always dangerous. Being the managing partner means Mr. Bush is even more culpable, given that he must have had direct working knowledge of the sleazy schemes. In any case, that Prescott Bush helped fund the Nazi war machine is indisputable. Why were the assets of Union seized if they were not culpable? Once again, the arguments of NYGuy consist of personal attacks and he does nothing to refute my assertions which are that the Bush clan is the most corrupt, perfidious bunch of slimeballs in American political history and the fact that they are not all doing hard time in Fort Leavenworth is a testament both to the right-wing propaganda machine they control, as well as to the stupidity and gullibility of the American people at large. I offer NYGuy as a living example.....

NYGuy - 7/11/2003

RP,

Thank you for the Clarification. As I indicated I was very familiar with BBH. That was the firm where that famous democrat Averill Harriman was the largest partner.

I am very familiar with financial structures, both partnerships and corporate. While Mr. Kriz is entitled to his opinion, it is only fair that one point out that he does not know what he is talking about. If Prescott was a "sole proprietor" than one could take him more serious.

This claim of working with Hitler has been debunked but it gets passed around from one group to another and in the process it gets distorted. That is why Kriz talked about a directorhsip when he meant to talk about a partner. If you, or anyone, wants to believe someone who does know what he is talking about, they are free to do so, as Joey so eloquently explained.

I await the usual link to be posted to support his claim. First he has to go back to headquarters and ask someone to verify that there is such a link. I just thought I would clue him in.

If Kriz's point is that Prescott was so crass to support the enemy when his 17 year son leaves Yale, with a large number of other Americans, whom he probably also knew, to fight Hitler and Japan, than indeed that would be terrible. But, we also have to condemn the democrat Averil Harriman who was Prescott's boss.

Kriz's statement is unfounded and in his attempt to demonize the Bush family, he falsely attempts to destroy the names of many fine Americans.

Kriz's comments have been repeated by him and others many times on this board, and in all cases they have failed to prove their case.

So what is knew?

Joey G - 7/11/2003

I disagree, Stephen, this site is not at all like NewsMax, although some posters are distemperate wing-nuts.

The theme here seems to be : open forum for strong opinion on all sides. That's O.K. with me.

Don't stop posting please,( if that was ever your intent,) The web needs more rational voices to counter all the right-wing agit-prop nonsense out there.

And of course it's true that many supposed conservatives such as W, Cheney et al , have done much harm to America in the course of their self-enrichment scams. Fair enough to call them traitors.

The *most* traitorous? Hard to compare. Could you please implement equals() ?

Joey G - 7/11/2003

Yow! I first thought my leg was being pulled, but your post led to look up the web site and yes indeed; Soft Skull Press is no right wing prop factory, in fact it's rather progressive.

Then yes, I will publish my hypothetical liberal Coutierlike hyperventilating screed there, as soon as I write it. ( don't wait up...)

RP Telford - 7/11/2003

Just to clear up NYGuy's obvious confusion: in October 1942, Prescott Bush was Managing Partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, and a director of Union Banking Corp.

Stephen Kriz - 7/11/2003

NYGuy:

Your response is puzzling. It's hard to reconcile your ad hominem attack on me, with your closing comments. In any case, I have given up trying to debate some of the people on this forum, as it has become like the old NewsMax Forum, where anything a liberal posts is followed by a string of expletives and personal attacks that do nothing to enlighten or to advance the argument on either side of the political spectrum.

As it relates to this fine piece of literature that Ms. Coulter has created, I was simply pointing out that some of the most egregious examples of compromising the security and national interests of the United States (i.e. treasonous acts) have been committed by conservative Republicans, not Democrats broadly or liberals specifically. The examples cited by Ms. Coulter, such as Reps. Bonior and McDermott traveling to Iraq on a humanitarian mission, are farcical when compared to the very serious acts of perfidy committed by members of the Bush family. I would hope people could cast aside their partisan blinders for a second and see that many pseudo-patriots, like our current president, have direct connections to treasonous acts.

NYGuy - 7/11/2003

Kriz,

You may have noticed that Josh posted the following:

"As far as Coulter and Carville, I consider her a pathological liar, and though I agree with many of the statements you attribute to Carville, he is a rabid a-hole with whom I do not seek any kind of common cause."

Since you are a disciple of Carville's debating tatics, start with Ann and blame Bush, it would seem that that like Carville, you too are a "rabid a-hole" with whom no one agrees.

By the way, you say, "Prescott Bush was a managing director of the Union Banking Corp. in New York" when he was helping Hitler. Others say he was also a Managing Partner of another major firm. Whom are we to believe? I guess he was really money hungry like all those oil barrons now running our country and held two jobs.

And, I heard that he increased his aid to the Nazi's when his son enlisted at 17, since if GW sr. was killed he would have gotten another $10,000.

Thank you for pointing out this souless family. And they pretend to have honor. Clinton had honor, there are no words to discuss this family.

Stephen Kriz - 7/11/2003

Like any good propagandist, Ann Coulter is selective (as well as deeply flawed)in her recounting of acts of treason by American politicians. In particular, there is no mention of one of the most perfidious, and I would assert treasonous, families in American political history. I am referring, of course, to the Bush clan.

Beginning with the American Revolution, when ancestor Timothy Bush sided with the Tories against the revolutionists, the Bush family has a record of giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. This is no more apparent than when George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was one of Adolf Hitler's primary financiers in the early days of the Third Reich. Prescott Bush was a managing director of the Union Banking Corp. in New York and helped fund numerous Nazi projects from the United States, until the assets of Union were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemies Act. The perfidy continued when George H.W. Bush was vice-president under Ronald Reagan and was actively involved in the supplying of Hawk missiles to Iran (now one of the notorious "Axis of Evil") in the mid-1980's. The ill-gotten proceeds of this illegal transaction (which violated not only the Boland Amendment, but the Arms Export Control Act and really amounted to flagrant criminal theft of government property) were transferred to the terrorist group known as the Contras, one of many terrorist organizations funded by Reagan-Bush. Bush would have surely been indicted by Lawrence Walsh and faced impeachment and/or prison time, had he not preemptively pardoned Cap Weinberger and other criminal elements from the Reagan Administration as one of his final acts as president in 1991. And let us not forget that George H.W. Bush, as president, signed National Security Directive 24, which provided massive amounts of arms and precursor chemicals for WMDs to Saddam Hussein in 1989. We all know how much American blood and treasure has been lost and continues to be lost to this day, to undo these treasonous acts. Of course, Ms. Coulter does not mention a word of these actions in her poorly written and hideously biased tome.

Ann Coulter does devote a lot of ink to the visit that Democratic Representatives David Bonior and Jim McDermott made to Iraq in 2002. As if they went there to plot the overthrow of the government of the United States with Saddam Hussein! She fails to even mention the nature of the trip, which was that it was a humanitarian fact-finding mission sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility. Bonior and McDermott did not meet with Hussein and instead, visited hospitals, pharmacies and villages, in an attempt to gauge the human suffering in Iraq, which now has been multiplied ten-fold by Bush's illegal war.

This slut Coulter is no different than the women you see on street corners, wearing fishnet stockings and swinging their handbags - She will say or do anything for money!

Josh Greenland - 7/11/2003

"The Founding Fathers ... emphasized duties, not rights, as the basis for a just society."

Dead wrong. They emphasized rights.

"In short, freedom is a privilege to be earned and defended, not a right."

A completely reversal of the truth. The "founding fathers" believed freedom to be the natural and desirable state of people, and believed that people had natural (inalienable) rights, rights they just simply had for being alive and human. They were more likely than European natural rights advocates to believe that these rights came from "God" or some other divine creator. They didn't have some romanesque love of duty to the state. They feared and disliked government, considering it necessary but dangerous, precisely for what it could do to the individual liberty that you consider a privilege, but that they knew was a right.

Check out the Bill of Rights. Or are you asserting that it doesn't list freedoms Americans have, but that we have to "earn" the "privileges" of free speech, expression, assembly and association, the "privilege" to own and use firearms, and the "privilege" of being free from unreasonable searches and seizures and being secure in our papers and personal effects?

As far as Coulter and Carville, I consider her a pathological liar, and though I agree with many of the statements you attribute to Carville, he is a rabid a-hole with whom I do not seek any kind of common cause.

John Kipper - 7/11/2003

First of all, my allusion to Carville was as a leper, not a leaper. But speaking of leaps, I have to congratulate you on your breathtaking sophistry when you conflated the liberalism of the Founding Fathers (term used on purpose, after all, they are all dead white men) with the liberalism of the 21st century American Democratic Party and its associated interest groups and self-aggrandizers, of whom Carville is a poster boy.
The Founding Fathers all were well-educated men, firmly grounded in the lessons of the Enlightment and classical history as well as contemporary Newtonian and practical science. Most were practicing Protestants, or, at least Deists, that recognized intelligent creation. They admired the Roman Republican virtues of patriotism and self-reliance and the rule of law; most deeply distrusted the excess of post-Periclean direct democracy. They emphasized duties, not rights, as the basis for a just society. All supported the sanctity of private property. Perhaps their most deeply held belief was that implementing the tenets Locke’s natural law with a generous sprinkling of Hobbes’ enlightened self-interest within the framework of a limited government would produce individual liberty. In short, freedom is a privilege to be earned and defended, not a right.
Contrast this to the tenets of modern American liberalism, which I will strive to present dispassionately: the rejection of an intelligent universe, the substitution of group rights for individual rights, duties replaced by entitlements, the sins of the father visited upon the son (reparations), intrusive governmental regulations, politically correct speech, race-based determinism and denigration of 3000 years of Western, Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian civilization. You know, all those things that produced the greatest economic, scientific, industrial, agricultural and cultural advances in the history of the world.
My point is not to argue the merits of either position, but merely to point out that equating the liberalism of the 18th century to contemporary politics is misleading at best, self-serving at worst and utterly specious. Times and contexts change, even though some words remain in the lexicon, their meanings change. Even John Kennedy won’t recognize or endorse present day liberalism. But I applaud your spirit. I am reminded of the philosophy of both the British and French militaries in the First World War: “l’audace, l’audace, tojours l’audace. While the spirit of the bayonet charge worked admirably against undisciplined and poorly armed Pathans and Algerians, it failed abysmally against Germans equipped with machine guns and artillery. “It was a glorious charge, but all the men died without achieving their objective.” So too did your argument.
Neither Coulter nor Carville are to be taken seriously, their public personas are caricatures. Both are bright, articulate, ambitious entertainers posing as partisan ideologues posing as pundits, and making a fortune. Coulter’s smearing of Truman, Marshall, Harriman et al is unconscionable. McCarthy was dangerous and obviously overreached. But the fact remains that there were many Communists in the US government, as in the British, French, Italian and West German governments after World War II. On the other hand, Carville’s strident, repetitious slanders against Republicans, charging that they starved the elderly, denied children the right to education, impoverished the middle class destroyed the earth, usurped the electoral process and co-opted the Supreme Court are equally hyperbolic and reprehensible. In my opinion, anyone who attacks Coulter and defends Carville for doing the same thing in a different partisan context is being disingenuous.
None of which should in any way lead you to believe that I am not partisan or that I am politically correct or that I am above ad hominem attacks. In proof of which I offer the following: Close observation of his CNN image reveals bulging eyeballs, smooth amphibian skin on his skull, thin lips, close-set ears, a rather hunched sitting posture and a long, prehensile tongue. Coupling these physical characteristics with his French ancestry, one cannot deny that Carville is, indeed, a Frog. As such, his best purpose is to sit on a rotting lily pad in a fetid swamp and snap at flies.

NYGuy - 7/10/2003

Joey G.

“It happens to any smart poster, as soon as you start to admit to complexity and try to actually have a reasonable conversation, you recognize how limiting the keyboard and mouse are.... Oh well.”

NYGuy

Good point. However reference to complexity refers to the pace of technological change and the learning curve required to deal with these changes. While the exact specifics of the rate of change may be difficult to quantify precisely, it does not detract from the impact and difficulty that countries, companies or individuals will have in dealing with rapidly changing technology. That difficulty puts them at a disadvantage and adds to the lead and power of the U. S.

Joey G.

“All I would say to your post at this point is that it's much cheaper to develop countermeasures to high tech weaponry then it is to make the weapon in the first place. America doesn't have all the brains in the world, and countermeasures to our tech advantages will appear more quickly then another equally capable military force will.”

NYGuy

We are talking at cross-purposes. Either you are right that technology is easily duplicated and therefore it is just a matter of applying ones self to exceeding the U. S. capability or as I say, it is difficult to get to the cutting edge of technology and the U. S. will always hold a technological advantage for many years to come, again giving us a major political advantage over any one else.

Joey G.

The rest of the world really is quite angry with us, it's not just UN officials who dine out. I don't travel much, but the Web brings the world to our doorstep. Listen to it.

NYGuy:

You prove my point; the Web brings the world to all our doorsteps, and over time should result in new dynamics that will favor our form of freedom and the leadership GW is providing. Sounds good for all of us. .

Joey G

The Tribal Mind must go. It's been useful for the eons we lived in tribes, as humans are the world's most dangerous animal. But nuclear weapons make war lust too risky for the survival of the species. We simply must find a way to trancend our instincts

NYGuy

Agree 100%. This is were both the leadership of GW, the U. S. policy, plus our positioning worldwide will make all the difference. I believe we are already on the way to finding that solution. It may not happen overnight, but with pressure from the U. S. it will be brought under control.

Joey G.

My chief problem with Bush is that rather then appealing to our minds and ethics, our most civilized parts, he's wildly pushing the base buttons of fear, tribal loyalty, and crude moralizing. This is a dangerous game, because it can turn the body politic into a mob, which is most irrational and destructive.

NYGuy

Sounds good, but my interpretation is that good leadership is what enables us to grow and prosper. With over 200 years of providing freedom for millions of the world’s population, I think GW’s character will permit others to appreciate what is possible. “What man can conceive, man can achieve.”

Joey G.

Civilization is the thinnest veneer over our innate savagery,

NYGuy

Freedom, technology and the success of our form of government are the forces that will reduce this savagery.

We get back to our original topic, “What to do.” I presented my point of view and if you have alternative plans that you think are better I would love to hear them. Unless the U. S. is proactive we will continue to face the unpredictable actions of the countries you think don’t like us, and who wants to damage and hurt our society.

Joey G - 7/10/2003

It happens to any smart poster, as soon as you start to admit to complexity and try to actually have a reasonable conversation, you recognize how limiting the keyboard and mouse are.... Oh well.

All I would say to your post at this point is that it's much cheaper to develop countermeasures to high tech weaponry then it is to make the weapon in the first place. America doesn't have all the brains in the world, and countermeasures to our tech advantages will appear more quickly then another equally capable military force will.

The rest of the world really is quite angry with us, it's not just UN officials who dine out. I don't travel much, but the Web brings the world to our doorstep. Listen to it.

The Tribal Mind must go. It's been useful for the eons we lived in tribes, as humans are the world's most dangerous animal. But nuclear weapons make war lust too risky for the survival of the species. We simply must find a way to trancend our instincts.

My chief problem with Bush is that rather then appealing to our minds and ethics, our most civilized parts, he's wildly pushing the base buttons of fear, tribal loyalty, and crude moralizing. This is a dangerous game, because it can turn the body politic into a mob, which is most irrational and destructive.

Civilization is the thinnest veneer over our innate savagry.

Joey G - 7/10/2003

I've never seen a link chopped up like that before. X-Windows and Mozilla made it easy to get to.

The article is long on characterizations and short on actual refutation of specific Moore statements. I count two. The Lockheed plant issue ( whether this particular plant made military missiles or not.) and the Heston speech date. The first is pretty trivial, and the second was a mistake he admitted thusly:"When I spoke to Moore last week, he confirmed Hardy’s point about the date of the speech, but angrily denied the allegation that he had misled viewers."

Neither error has much to do with Moore's thesis.

The Times article says Moore is unfair to Heston, as Heston did some civil rights work once. This is pretty weak stuff.

The article relies heavily on quotes from uber-right wing polemist John Fund, and overall reads like a hatchet job trying to come off as balanced reporting.

Moore is an entertainer. If he likes to make money doing it that 's ok by me. If his trivial facts are loose, that's fine too. He's not lying about the big stuff.

The only thing from the Globe article that remotely resembles a statistic is: " It may be true that most guns are found in white suburbs, but the statistics show that most homicides occur in the inner cities."

This isn't really a statistic, but an attempt to prop up an opinion by using the word 'statistic.'

At any rate, Moore is right about the main point: America is a much more violent place then Canada and our love affair with the gun is closely related to this fact. All these articles try to discredit Moore and fail, at least to the critical reader.

Josh Greenland - 7/10/2003

"Yeah, your definitive links either don't work ( #1 )"

You need to copy and paste the whole link into the browser. Just clicking on it doesn't work.

I included the Hardy piece because it is discussed in the London Times article. (BTW, you never demonstrated that Hardy's essay was "non-factual" or "dishonest," just tossed out that assertion.)

"The Globe article's only "refutations" of Moore are merely criticisms of his generalizations with some weak counter examples. Anecdotes are not evidence, statistics are."

The main reason I included the Globe article was its author's refutation of Moore's notion that Canada is a paraside where people don't lock their doors. She does mention a statistic there, which you apparently overlooked.

Charles V. Mutschler - 7/10/2003

Joey G. writes, " Soft skull? are they the publishing wing of the Skull and Bones Society that George joined?"

Laugh if you will, but the press in question really does exist. Judging from their web site, I somehow doubt that they will be publsihing anything in the way of Bush family memoirs or Yale secret society recollections any time soon. Soft Skull Press is the outfit which picked up the option on Michael Bellesiles' _Arming America_ earlier this year after Knopf dropped it.

Charles V. Mutschler

Charles V. Mutschler - 7/10/2003

Joey G. writes, " Soft skull? are they the publishing wing of the Skull and Bones Society that George joined?"

Laugh if you will, but the press in question really does exist. Judging from their web site, I somehow doubt that they will be publsihing anything in the way of Bush family memoirs or Yale secret society recollections any time soon. Soft Skull Press is the outfit which picked up the option on Michael Bellesiles' _Arming America_ earlier this year after Knopf dropped it.

Charles V. Mutschler

Bill Heuisler - 7/10/2003

Mr. G.
My words were, "Treason's premise that the Libs and Dems are usually anti-American is correct. The trouble is that few public people have the balls to say it." Prove me wrong, Mr. G.

Coulter wrote a book of 340 pages giving example after example of Libs and Democrats who defended Hiss the spy and derided McCarthy the US Senator (even after the release of the Venona Papers); who would rather offend Reagan than Gorbachev; who would castigate a decorated Marine while entertaining despot Danny Ortega in their Malibu soirees; who kiss Castro's ass after he kills and imprisons critics of his dictatorship: who screamed outrage when Reagan took Grenada, but only managed a shrug when Soviet tanks rolled into Afganistan. It's about time somebody asked why, don't you think?

Instead of protesting with parsiflage like militarism and humility why not give an example of something complimentary you've written about the US on HNN? Remind me of some foreign policy coup President Carter initiated that didn't result in the loss of some US ally's freedom to Socialists, Ayahtollas or Communists. State some facts, Mr. G. Refute Ann Coulter's book.
Bill Heuisler

NYGuy - 7/10/2003

Joey thanks for your response and your ideas on this subject. I think we can exchange ideas even if we don’t agree. I would add that I have been highly critical of some articles on HNN, and although this is not an article, it is my work and I am a firm believer that “turn around is fair play.” So please say whatever you feel.

Joey G:

If it were true that other nations will soon be able to effectively neutralize our present technological advantage, then it would be smarter to focus on building diplomatic capital and avoid using our military advantage for resource grabbing.

NYGuy

That is a good question and I was not as clear on this point as I should have been. Aside from WMD, I don’t believe there are many, if any countries that can neutralize our present technological advantage in the foreseeable future. Because the technology changes so fast, the learning curve for such products is very steep. In my mind the only country I would think might do it is China. The European countries, France and Germany are too far behind to be effective and most other countries are too small.

The countries with WMD do pose the real threat to the world, which is why we must get them under control, and it is necessary for all countries to get a handle on this threat in which no one wins. Being in Afganistan may be an advantage since we might be able to have reasonable dialogues with Pakistan and india.

With the UN out of the picture, I believe we probably have a greater chance of getting WMD under control.

As far as diplomatic capital goes, I think we may be building more than is recognized in the fog of war. And having our soldiers killed is a difficult problem, but it is part of leadership.

I think it is good that we are not sitting at home trying to figure out what other countries are doing, and passing laws restricting our intelligence capabilities. I believe our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan serves us well since it enables us to get a better understanding of our friends and our enemies around the world and in the process, (this is wishful thinking), we can derail any major confrontations.

As for France and Germany they have outlived their usefulness and will be very little help to us in the future. Therefore I see no reason to prop up their economy by stationing troops in Germany. The same goes for South Korea where we also have a love/hate relationship. Helping both Iraq and Afghanistan makes more diplomatic sense to me.

Joey

Instead, Bush is destroying our diplomatic standing and pissing off the rest of the world, who in your scenario will soon be able to fight back with guns equal to ours. YOW! WWIII.

NYGuy

From what I read on HNN they don’t like us anyway. The only people who are pissed off are the UN officials who frequent the upscale NY restaurants where they enjoy gourmet cooking and high priced wines. I used to think the UN had merit, but today I rather have a government, no matter how maligned, that represents decency and democracy, figuring things out than a bunch of thug states, many of whom don’t know what the term “dignity of man” means. However, others disagree on this point and that is all right too.


Joey G;

For the tribal mind, showing strength is the way to avoid being attacked. But Bush isn't showing the kind of strength that breeds respect and admiration, he's bullying the world, and bullies always fall.

NYGuy

My hope on technology is that we can get past the “tribal mind” and focus on "knowledge is power". This is another subjective and possibly naïve assumption. I specifically mentioned the students of all levels, but it will include all those who have and use computers. Can you imagine a student, a teacher, etc today who would not hunger to be more efficient in what they are doing and probably love. Just using a five-year-old computer would cause major frustrations, as would a 28K modem, and would result in demands for new and better technology and with the knowledge, a better life. Such up to date, current technology will most likely come from just a few countries, one of which is the U. S. This too should lead to more friendly relationships. Meanwhile putting a complex technology infrastructure into place will likely occupy minds more that building up military might. Almost a "guns and butter" scenario, in my opinion.

Another highly speculative idea is that computer and communication growth is a positive force and a more probable course of improved human development in the future, as opposed to focusing on a destructive pattern of behavior, such as we had in the Mid-east these many years. Actually our presence in the Mid-east also causes our friends and enemies to be careful in the course they take since they cannot reasonable predict what impact our presence in the area will have. Therefore although achieving peace in the area will be difficult I don’t believe it is possible unless we are nearby. But, then again, boys will be boys.

This is a complex subject and maybe I am too naive or may not be clear in all my comments. I don’t blindly follow GW, but I do think we have to move in different directions for our own good. If it helps the rest of the world, good, but I am a firm believer that “charity begins at home” and at the momemt are think we are producing a safer America, and the world.

Joey this is getting too serious, maybe we can call a truce and go back to the “old slash and burn” days.

How is your book coming, got a publisher yet :)

Joey G - 7/10/2003

It's nice to be nice, to the nice. - Frank Burns.

I'm not a seething angry weirdo,tho I do get a little ad-hominum from time to time, usually in response to truly ridiculous statements. ( no implication about present company intended, we're being nice :)

I read your entire post, and I agree that technology is truly a wild card in questions having to do with the international balance of power and military procurement.

If it's true that other nations will soon be able to effectivly neutralize our present technological advantage, then it would be smarter to focus on building diplomatic capital and avoid using our military advantage for resource grabbing.

Instead, Bush is destroying our diplomatic standing and pissing off the rest of the world, who in your scenario will soon be able to fight back with guns equal to ours. YOW! WWIII.

For the tribal mind, showing strength is the way to avoid being attacked. But Bush isn't showing the kind of strength that breeds respect and admiration, he's bullying the world, and bullies always fall.

NYGuy - 7/10/2003

Joey,

Thank you. It is nice to be nice.

My point is that we are in the early stages of the computer, digital, etc revolution, which goes back about 35 years when IBM and computers really took off. A rule of thumb coined by Moore of Intel is that technology doubles every 1 and ½ year. Don’t pin me down on precision here; let us just say it changes rapidly.

Weapons of war: I am not advocating war, but merely noting the so called, ‘intelligence of our weapons and how fast this changes, as well as how far they can reach, which makes the world smaller and smaller. Because of these rapid changes most, if any, countries can equal or keep up with us at this time. As such it has important implications for how future wars will be fought and the desire to undertake such wars, since to do so just about all countries are starting from an earlier point of development of weapons and therefore will have to expend both time and money to catch up, making the desire for war less likely at this time. This does not make the U. S. a bully. Let me leave that thought and go to the more important consideration, since my real point is the consumption of technology by the world’s population.


Unlike the industrial revolution where technology affected the worker primarily, today the computer effects, or has the potential to affect, every human being in the world. And as this grows it increases communication between people and countries.

I don’t want to get involved in whether we are the most advanced nation in this area or not. The point is that everyone will have to make large investment in technology just to stay even. A failure to do so for even 1-2 years can cause one to fall behind quickly, and maybe never catch up.

Looking at population statistics, most countries in the world are small compared to China, Russia, India, and U. S. etc. Even the European countries are relatively small. These larger countries must try to catch up with, and maintain their technology, since if their people fall far behind, it effects their ability to compete. But in the process of improving the capacity of the computer, they are forced to speed up the communication capability between their people and the rest of the world. This increased capability increases communications among all peoples and gives each citizen a greater interest in maintaining peaceful relations with others if they are to continue to improve their technological capabilities.

Meanwhile, the students, who are the future leaders want to have access to the new more powerful technology which they won’t get if they remain in a static, quarrelsome and warlike state. This is probably happening in Iran and I understand the increase in broadband in China is just exploding. The point is today’s technology creates a demand for faster and more powerful computers and greater communications among all countries which will not be achieved by countries that engage in warlike activities.

I will stop here with the technology side.

Meanwhile, the U. S. position in both Iraq and Afghanistan is important not to build an empire, but because it places the image of democracy among those who are most likely to create problems. I don’t believe the Mid-crisis can be resolved without the current positions of the U. S. around the world.

Now this does not mean people won’t be people, nor nations will not act in their own best interests. But it does mean that there are new constraints being imposed on all countries, which make war an even poorer alternative to peace.

Thus, the U. S. actions around the world are now preparing us better against future attacks, as well as presenting an opportunity for more peaceful ways of dealing with each other. It will not happen overnight, but if we remained in our shell it would probably not happen at all.

On the domestic economy. The Bush economic plan has increase confidence which cause the stock market to rise sharply this year. Since most tax payers have some form of investment in the market, this "wealth effect" not only increases confidence but puts more money in their pockets. Meanwhile with the tax cut kicking in we have a one-two punch for a strong and long lasting economy.

Cheers and have a good day.
NYGuy

Joey G - 7/10/2003

I respond to the tone at hand, NYGuy. I would like you to have a nice day too, I honestly would.

JoeyG - 7/10/2003

Pretty good try, Kipper! You sure have to love James Carville, who doesn't mince many words ( at least when Mary's not around! )

But James Carville has not a single thesis or opinion anywhere nearly as odious as the notion that a philosophical school of thought firmly held by American Founders ( that's right, I"m talking about LIBERALISM here, ) is somehow traitorous or un-American.

Of course, if you could provide a Carville quote saying something like " all conservative Americans should be shot!" I'll be prepared to agree that Carville is a Coultier of the left.

JoeyG - 7/10/2003

Re the shooting down of American passanger airplanes by the U.S. military... it's usually frowned upon.

Is your point that the Military dropped the ball? ( or maybe some darker suspicions? ) Or that the military has a valid role in domestic police work? ( Posse Comitatus be darned! )

My only point is that 9/11 wasn't a declaration of war, much less an invasion of the continental United States. It was a criminal act that could just as easily have been done by homegrown nutballs.

Joey G - 7/10/2003

NYGuy, do you really know the guy who put on the famous Woodstock festival? Wow. Faaaaar out man!.

So what? Your post about the issue is incoherent, I have no idea what your point is, other then to repeat a bunch of hackneyed old saws about what lazy, useless kids they were.

This must be your little slice of the "culture wars"

>Joey, the “oil” thing is boring

I guarantee you that G.W. and Cheney do not find the oil business the least bit boring. Why are you so disinterested?

You say some unspecified technology revolution informs some strange hidden agenda of the brilliant Bush Bunch. Maybe you should share just a few words about this mystery. I'm really in need of enlightenment about it.

>that is why “hippies” continue to remain in the same old stupor.
Well, any real 60's hippies in a stupor today should lay off the weed. Most have real jobs, to pay for those SUVs, right?

NYGuy - 7/10/2003

Joey,

My friend you are getting a little testy. Reminds me of the two Psychiatrists who were passing each other and one said, "Hi" and the other psychiatrist wondered, what did he mean by that.

This is still a board where some consideration can be given to others and not only think about yourself. But if it is not important for you to be clear in what you are posting then it is not important for others to read your post.

Cheers

Joey G - 7/10/2003

In the parent of my post, Bill H. says
>None of the whiners have come up with a flaw in the larger issue of Dem/Lib anti-Americanism.

Really NYGuy, is it that hard to look up the post I'm responding to? Or are you just looking for easy ways to dismiss my polemic?

I don't need your badge of credibility.

Joey G - 7/10/2003

Yeah, your definitive links either don't work ( #1 ) or contain such hard nosed fact checking as

> After Bowling was released someone checked and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles;

Someone checked? This is pretty soft stuff.

David Hardy is a well known conspiracy theorist, his site also tackles such tough issues as the dangers of Barney the Dinosaur.

The Globe article's only "refutations" of Moore are merely criticisms of his generalizations with some weak counter examples. Anecdotes are not evidence, statistics are.

The Globe writer also trys to spin Moore's use of comparisons as an argument for cause and effect. Moore didn't claim that the Columbine massacre and the Kosovo bombing were directly linked. The author sets up a strawman and knocks it down.

Your 2 working links are non-factual, dishonest critiques of Michael Moore. Par for the media course, these days.

NYGuy - 7/10/2003

Joey,

It helps if you cite those who are calling anyone Anti-American, otherwise it just seems like you are setting up a straw man.

Turning around and using the same tactic on others only destroys your credibility. I understand you are "a man of the people" but that should include fairness.

NYGuy - 7/10/2003

Joey G:

Since To whom it may concern: The United States of America is with out a doubt demonstably the most secure major nation to ever exist on Earth. Two major oceans along the latitudes, and weak, dependant neighbors on the longitudes, no one has really attempted to take our nation by force since 1812.

Any fears of a Japaneese or Nazi land invasion of the continental United States were ridiculous. Any attempt to move a sufficiently massive land force across the Atlantic or Pacific would've been a disaster, and no sane military man really thinks otherwise.

PAC:

Time and distance has changed dramatically since the time you are talking about and the potential for destruction is even greater. Since you have no idea of what happened to take down two 110 story towers in a matter of hours you can not understand the "Current threats" to this country. That is why you can be so indifferent to what has happened to the U. S. and put forth a discredited approach to foreign policy.

One considers your 100% American opinion because that is what makes our country so great. But, from my perspective, since you lack key understanding of what is happening in the world today I must tell you I just consider it a priviledge of your being an American, but not a serious policy alternative in these rapidly changing and dangerous times.

NYGuy - 7/10/2003

Joey,

This is a history board. In any analysis the answer one gets depends on where they start. My comments are meant to show that this whole topic should cover a longer period in our history to properly understand the activities of the "hippies of their day and their love for communism", and other idealogies that were threatening our country and that were real. These real threats are what the people of the time were reacting to. There were real issues for our counrry and real concerns.

To focus on only one aspect of this period does not give a true historical picture. Such an approach does not credit or discredit McCarthyism. The appeal is to put this entire topic in a longer time frame so we can get a proper perspective of what was happening during these times and why each actor performed in his/her own particular way.

NYGuy - 7/10/2003

PAC said:
“I personally knew the people who financed and put on Woodstock”

Joey G:
“I don't believe you.”

PAC
I knew Roberts personally, so your doubting does not change things. Whether I did or did not know him is still irrelevant. The fact is he was the only decent, principled individual to come out of Woodstock. All the others were just irresponsible free loaders who only cared about themselves and their need to satisfy their own needs. Maybe you can name some hero from Woodstock who was a responsible decent human being, but I doubt it.

http://www.woodstock69.com/wsrprnt7.htm
Thursday morning, Roberts arrived alone at the White Lake branch of the Sullivan County National Bank. He pledged $1 million in stock to the bank to cover the $250,000 note. "I was off the hook," Prince said. Roberts, Lang, Kornfeld and Rosenman had made personal guarantees to pay the bills. But only Roberts' family - and his own trust fund - had enough assets to pay off Woodstock's debt. While Lang stayed with the cleanup crews, the other three partners squirmed under the fiscal glare.

"Roberts' father and brother told the Wall Street bankers that they never had run out on debts and they weren't going to start now. The Roberts family paid off the debt."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0886122.html
John Roberts
Age: 56
music producer and entrepreneur who was a founder of 1969's monumental Woodstock Music and Art Fair. Roberts and his partners expected 50,000 people to attend the festival, but more than a half million showed up at the Bethel, N.Y., venue. He also produced Woodstock '94, the decidedly less peaceful event. Roberts was also a champion bridge player.
Died: Manhattan, Oct. 28, 2001

Joey G:

Sources are irrelevent. Every assertion you make about Woodstock is all based on your presuppositions about "hippies," a class of people I do have a lot of experience with.

PAC:

I come from NYC which has 5 boroughs, it is more then Manhattan and I have many relatives in these boroughs who attended. Why do you doubt me?

If you don’t believe me, here is what one poster said about the event.

http://www.geocities.com/~music-festival/mailbag.htm

From Mike B.
I was 15 years old and the first time away from home with out my parents, The first thing I remember was my sisters boyfriend telling me that even a pimpled skinny fairskined kid like me might even get lucky here. Well as it turned out I didn't; I must have been the only one though!!

“Hippies help the poor”

I told some poor people that the “hippies” were going to change things and use their wealth to get them out of poverty. I thought they would be happy to hear this, but in their wisdom they replied:

“Money talks and BS walks.” They are still waiting, once again their wisdom shows through.

Since hippies only think about themselves, how can they really understand poverty and what is happening in the real world. That is why we get the preachy comments that we should turn the other cheek. That is until California gets attacked. But, scratch the surface of this group, and if it hurts them, then they will sing a different tune.

Joey G:

But if your idea of us being "well-positioned" means having a choke hold on the most valuable resource in the world, then thank god for G.W., yes indeed.

PAC
Joey the “oil” thing is boring and shows why you can’t understand what is happening in the real world today. I have repeated on this board many times that we are in the early stages or a major technology revolution. Unless you understand the importance of these changes there is no way you can understand the “Genius” of GW and company. Enjoy Franken and his silliness. He says nothing that will help you to understand, that is why “hippies” continue to remain in the same old stupor. Aside from snide remarks what solutions do they bring forward.

I like to see that we still have hippies. It shows what a great country we are.

Cheers,

It is not too late to learn about what makes America the greatest country in the world.

Josh Greenland - 7/10/2003

"If you could provide even one clear example...."

...Of Michael Moore's dishonesty in his pseudo-documentary Bowling for Columbine? There are one or more clear examples in each webpage:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-716842,00.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030303/COGAGN3/TPNational/Columnists

I don't think liberals or the Left need Moore. This leftie certainly doesn't.

Josh Greenland - 7/10/2003

"19 terrorists hijacked 4 American passenger planes and used them to destroy buildings and murder citizens. This was a criminal act, not a military one, and no amount of military spending can address that vulnerability in a military way."

I have to disagree with you there, Joey. We did have a program of fighter planes whose orders were to shoot down errant planes, including commercial passenger jets, if they looked like they were doing to do something really bad over US soil.

But no one in government seems to have been able to explain why these fighters didn't operate against the planes that hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

"This is a 100% All-American Patriotic Opinion: we need to reduce our spending on military hardware, bring our boys home and pay them a much better wage, and stop being scared of foreign bogeymen!"

Amen!!!

John Kipper - 7/10/2003

Sure it does. His name is James Carville, who, if memory serves me appears regularly on CNN. And just to continue the tradition of personal attacks, I would like to point out that Mr Carville shares the name of the last leper colonly in Louisiana. How's that for reasonableness?

JoeyG - 7/10/2003

> positioning ourselves to better protect Americans

To whom it may concern: The United States of America is with out a doubt demonstably the most secure major nation to ever exist on Earth. Two major oceans along the latitudes, and weak, dependant neighbors on the longitudes, no one has really attempted to take our nation by force since 1812.

Any fears of a Japaneese or Nazi land invasion of the continental United States were ridiculous. Any attempt to move a sufficiently massive land force across the Atlantic or Pacific would've been a disaster, and no sane military man really thinks otherwise.

Since the collapse of the U.S.S.R. there is absolutely no credible military threat to the U.S.A. from any nation on earth.

19 terrorists hijacked 4 American passenger planes and used them to destroy buildings and murder citizens. This was a criminal act, not a military one, and no amount of military spending can address that vulnerability in a military way.

And still, Americans can be made to fear. Why is it so easy to make us afraid?

This is a 100% All-American Patriotic Opinion: we need to reduce our spending on military hardware, bring our boys home and pay them a much better wage, and stop being scared of foreign bogeymen!

Joey G - 7/10/2003

The media sure seem to take the Coultier bilge seriously.

Who drives the mass media market anyway, the consumer or the producer? Impossible to say for sure, I imagine.

Joey G - 7/10/2003

Of course we had Russian spies, but a public House hearing is not the way to catch a mole! The HUAC circus was really about political grandstanding, and to try to vindicate McCarthy or discredit his critics by pointing to actual espionage is disingenuous.

Joey G - 7/10/2003

Soft skull? are they the publishing wing of the Skull and Bones Society that George joined?

No really, I'll check it out just as soon as I've penned the best new liberal vitriol book ever written. Don't wait for me.

Joey G. - 7/10/2003

Now I just about never fail to generate responses whenever I hit one of these boards. I see plenty of guys posting in all caps who foam at the mouth and don't get responses, and othere trying to be as high minded as they can and not generating any interest. If getting a response isn't a sign of being entertaining in some respect, I'll eat my hat.





P.S.:I'm not really going to eat my hat.

Joey G - 7/9/2003

>I personally knew the people who financed and put on Woodstock
I don't believe you.

Sources are irrelevent. Every assertion you make about Woodstock is all based on your presuppositions about "hippies," a class of people I do have a lot of experience with.

Yeah, it's true that a lot of hippies became yuppies. "Trustafarian" is what we call the children of these yuppies, who drive the SUVs to the Phish concert and never seem to need jobs.

But I know at least two well-off children of wealthy conservatives who don't work and have no purpose other then living high off the trust fund.

>As for the war in Iraq
Of course much has changed since Vietnam, and old "Country Joe and the Fish" songs aren't going to cut it anymore. You're right, too many liberals are torpid, mired down in the muck of old paradigms.

But if your idea of us being "well-positioned" means having a choke hold on the most valuable resource in the world, then thank god for G.W., yes indeed.

I ain't no flower child. I understand and appreciate real-politic.And I don't expect our oligarchy to advertise the ugly things it "must do" to help make life in America nice an cushy for all us proles. I don't expect sincere honesty from them, really.

I do expect some competency though, and G.W.and company are pretty clownish and bungling, hence the need for excessive secrecy. If not for the corrupt cowardlyness of the Democratic party and obsequiousness of the corporate media, W. & Co. would be exposed for the second rate con-men they are and laughed out of Washington.

Sorry if my commentary isn't sufficiently erudite,scholarly or 'balanced.' Try freerepublic.com for that.

Joey G - 7/9/2003

Philisophical opposition to militarism is not disloyal.

Opposition to the use of the military for resource grabbing is not disloyal.

Prefering a more truly humble U.S.A. sure as hell ain't disloyal.

What is disloyal is the way conservatives push the fear buttons to get our base tribal reactions to help provide a political boost for a fundamentally unpopular president.

What is disloyal is spreading the toxic notion that over half of our population is somehow "the wrong kind" and should be suppressed.

>Michael Moore is ugly. Ann Coulter is attractive.

As Frank Zappa might have said, the ugliest part of Ann's body is her mind. Michael Moore's dopey grin is far easier on the eyes then Ann Coultier's toxic smirk.

Joey G - 7/9/2003

If you could provide even one clear example....

Conservatives have a real need to dismiss Micheal Moore; he is an effective polemist for the left. The pity is that so many on the left are so hung up on their "polite" and "reasonable" style of discourse that they critizise Moore for being "harsh" or "whiney."

Of course, no one whines like a modern conservative.

Joey G - 7/9/2003

Editing sources to emphasis your point is not something that only Mr Moore does. I don't think his sources are quoted out of context in any significant way, nor does he twist the fundamental meanings.

Joey G - 7/9/2003

Moore may exaggerate a wee bit, but compared to Rush Limbaugh he's the acme of accuracy. Check it out.

john horse - 7/9/2003

Shame on HNN for not posting http://www.spinsanity.org's critique of Ann Coulter. Excellent analysis of Treason (http://spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html) and Slander (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html). Lots of documentation of Coulter's distortions and misrepresentations. Also check out Chris Matthews recent interview with Coulter (http://www.msnbc.com/news/933483.asp).

donald k pickens - 7/9/2003

Please let old Joe rest on his bed of coals. Of all the nonsense the idea that liberals determined US foeriegn policy is one of the greatest. She knows no history and hersense of political philosophy is non existent. Please let us ignore her. Thank you.

NYGuy - 7/9/2003

Roxman,

You hit the nail on the head. No one remembers the Lincoln Brigade which represented:
“The conviction that made volunteering for a war against fascism possible was born from the economic calamity and political turmoil of the 1930s. Like many during the Great Depression, the young volunteers had an experience of deprivation and injustice that led them to join the burgeoning student, unemployed, union, and cultural movements that were influenced by the Communist Party (CP) and other Left organizations. Involvement in these groups exposed them to a Marxist and internationalist perspective and, with their successes in galvanizing people to conscious, political action, gave rise to a revolutionary elan.”

Nor do they remember the students at CCNY and other city colleges who promoted communism in the 30’s.

They also forget the German's in the U. S. who supported Hitler in the 30’s. There were Bund Rallies, with Nazi uniforms and swastikas, held in NYC to support Hitler. I remember meeting a member of the FBI who told stories of living with German agents to capture them. The agents would watch the ships leaving ports and send out information by radio to the U-boats, now commonly called submarines. And many a sailor was lost because his ship was torpedoed as a result of this spying. Thus the saying, “Lose lips sink ships.”

And people forget that we lived with Blue Stars in the window to tell the world their sons were in service and Yellow star to say they were KIA. And we saw and met almost daily, those who were burned because of Kamikaze attacks or others who were seriously wounded. This was not a time for sipping wine and cheese and fanaticizing over what might be. There were real threats in the air.

And even after the war that fear continued. I was in high school and we were told that we had to be given assignments over the holidays. Some genius thought we should strike. On one morning everyone stayed outside of the school, but were dispelled into small crowds. Someone suggested we go to another school and get support. When we arrived the principal came out and confronted a group of students. I, in my naiveté, walked up to the principal and said let them go and we will all leave peacefully, after all this was nothing more than a lark for most of us, and not a threat to the security of the U. S. The next thing I know I am in the Principal’s office and two FBI agents wanted to know who put us to this and who the adult leader behind this strike. I could not even imagine what he was talking about, but, their concerns were real.

I don’t think you can just dismiss this era by discrediting McCarthy and act as if nothing was going on in the country, or the world that threatened the U. S.

I do not have a dog in the Ann Coulter race, but I agree with Roxman:

“The governmental anti-communist attitudes of the '50s you spoke of were manifestations of the knowledge gained earlier.”

And it was a serious threat, whether perceived or real. If nothing else the flap over Ann’s book demands that historians give more detailed attention to the entire period from the rise in communism and Hitlerism until the McCarthy hearings, and not play blind man and the elephant with this important era of our history.

Charles V. Mutschler - 7/9/2003

"Can I have a book deal now? "

Joey, perhaps you can market your book concept to the folks at Soft Skull Press.

Charles V. Mutschler

Ralph E. Luker - 7/9/2003

NYG: My point was that Coulter precipitated the discussion with a book that is all heat and no light. The notion that Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson were treasonous anti-Americans is ludicrous on the face of it. The bilge is not to be taken seriously.

Josh Greenland - 7/8/2003

"Michael Moore is quite funny, and is genuinely self deprecating. He also presents information that is accurate in the public record sense of the word."

Give us a break. Bowling for Columbine is the Arming America of documentaries. It's riddled with falsehoods. A number of Internet-available articles have come out debunking the implied and explicit falsehoods in Bowling. (Some people claim that Moore has lied in previous works as well.)

The funny thing is, I agree with the general left politics Moore claims to support. But he's a sleazy liar who thinks that because he's a joke-cracking clown, we'll all forgive him for playing fast and loose with the truth.

If the paragraphs that HNN put in its Coulter article are representative of her writing, I can agree with what you say about her, and in some ways, Moore does actually come off looking better than she does. I just wouldn't rely on anything either of them said.

Mickey Mouse - 7/8/2003

Joey,

You said: I can devise lies as well as they can, and be just as entertaining !!

But, Joey you are not entertaining, you are just boring.

Mickey

Charles V. Mutschler - 7/8/2003

Joey G writes, "Michael Moore is quite funny, and is genuinely self deprecating. He also presents information that is accurate in the public record sense of the word. "

There is reason to doubt Mr. Moore's accuracy. Some of his editing of documents for "Bowling for Columbine" are like some of the selective quoting in Michael Bellesiles' "Arming America." Specifically, changing the meaning of the document by editing out portions of it has apparently happened in both "Arming America" and "Bowling for Columbine." Mr. Markell is right - Michael Moore is not a source I would call accurate.

Charles V. Mutschler

NYGuy - 7/8/2003

Joey,

I personally knew the people who financed and put on Woodstock as well as those who attended and engaged in public sex. Aside from wishful thinking what is your sources. What great self control you say they had. Maybe I did underestimate the decency of these music lovers. Of course if you heard they weren't having sex with those who brought them, you may be right. This was the greatest orgy since Roman times.

The roads were overwhelmed, the people were tired and they just wanted to get out of there. The only decent people in this whole mess were those who put it on and in an "honorable" manner paid their debts even thought their contract could not make them pay. They also worked to restore the site. This was probably the only honorable or decent thing that happened on that weekend.

Of course the children of that generation are making more money, their divorce rate is higher so they don't have to go home at night and take care of their families, so they can make more money. But with all their money poverty is still too high. I thought they wanted to share the wealth with others. Now they sound like those rich people everyone complains about.

As for the war in Iraq, that generation is so mired down in a quagmire that they can't lift their thinking above a certain level even though the world has changed dramatically since Woodstock. Thus I do understand your inability to look into the future, but thanks to GW and company we are positioning ourselves to better protect Americans and to make the world a lot safer for everyone. Unless you get out of the "flower children" mentality you will never be able to understand what is happening in the world. Fortuneately there are those who know better and will protect you.

NYGuy - 7/8/2003

Ralph,

You said:

"The arguments of personal destruction are just a case of more heat but no light." Your own words indict Coulter's whole approach.

You made a very good point about Horowitz. His past activity as a communist makes his comments important and we must seriously consider what he says. He cites his reasons and thus one can analysis his opinion against Ann's. Meanwhile, I believe Bill is capable of raising sound counter arguments which he has done again to his credit.

Yes you stunned me with the post of Horowitz. And, Horowitz's comments on various political leaders of the time are very important to consider. I did have concerns when I read who was being attacked. I have not read treason and beyond a recollection of the period, do not have the in depth knowledge to make a judgement at this time, but am willing to consider the various arguements for and against Ann, Bill or Horowitz.

We do know that Ann documents her work for others to evaluate. Thus we have a starting point on what she said. Therefore, we have an opportunity to explore the positions of Ann, Horowitz and Bill and those who agree or disagree with them in a reasoned manner. With all the historians in the house I would think there are experts who can shed additional light on this period, and the weight of the interpretation of the various contributors.

I read Slander and I thought there were real efforts to discredit Ann's scholarship or lack of it. The reviews seemed petty and the overall thesis of her book was not dicredited, although, she was personnally degraded. I will be looking for more information and opinions on Treason, and will read the book, so I can get a better perspective on who is right, or if we are playing blind man and the elephant.

Thus we have an opportunity to live up to the purpose that HNN has sought, having meaningful contributions to the interpretation of an important period in our history.

My simplistic statement does not prove or disprove anything. Only those who have knowledge and are willing to make an honest contribution to this debate can help all of us sort out this important period in our history.

Hopefully we will move in this direction.

Elia Markell - 7/8/2003

Michael Moore accurate? Are you serious?

Bill Heuisler - 7/8/2003

Ralph,
Radiosh and Horowitz do not regulate my opinions. They are often wrong. They are wrong about Coulter. Treason's premise that the Libs and Dems are usually anti-American is correct. The trouble is that few public people have the balls to say it.

Horowitz should not be defending JFK. JFK deliberately sabotaged the Brigade at Playa Jiron, traded missiles in Turkey and a "no invade Cuba" promise to buy off Kruschev and allowed the Berlin Wall to be built. How a President could do more damage in a short, tragic term is beyond imagination. Dupe, traitor or idiot is open to interpretation. Coulter has her interpretation and I agree. How dare Conason and company tell her she can't hold them in contempt. They have called politicians on the Right far worse.

Michael Moore is ugly. Ann Coulter is attractive. Enough said.

Technical mistakes do not nullify larger points. None of the whiners have come up with a flaw in the larger issue of Dem/Lib anti-Americanism. In the middle of Treason, Coulter talks about American troops crossing the Yalu. To the best of my knowledge, we never crossed the Yalu, but that neither obscures nor negates her larger point that Truman would not allow MacArthur to win the Korean War. There were a dozen bridges over the Yalu. They could've been dropped before the Chinese crossed. We knew about the Chinese Divisions massed North of the Yalu; we knew about the bridges; we knew the Chinese had committed to enter the war.

So, Ralph she made a mistake on the Yalu, but the important question is: Why didn't Truman prevent the Chinese from flanking the UN armies? Coulter's opinion seems pretty accurate to me. Truman and JFK? Their actions speak loudly enough.
Bill Heuisler

Roxman - 7/8/2003

You're right about the late '50s and '60s - however, the considerable infestation of the federal government (also the labor unions and to a lesser extent, Hollywood) by Soviet intelligence took place in the '30s and '40s. Once the government learned the degree of penetration in the late 1940s (from defectors, VENONA, and other sources that still remain classified), it woke up and began to take steps to protect itself. The governmental anti-communist attitudes of the '50s you spoke of were manifestations of the knowledge gained earlier.

Ralph E. Luker - 7/8/2003

NYG:
Read what _you_ said in this sentence: "The arguments of personal destruction are just a case of more heat but no light." Your own words indict Coulter's whole approach.

NYGuy - 7/8/2003

No Ralph, it just shows there is a better way to exchange ideas than to just lob a lot of the garbage that is being expressed here.

There are points and elements to both Ann and David's comments that can be addressed. The arguments of personal destruction are just a case of more heat but no light.

Perhaps the point/counterpoint can be review by some posters and they can adjust their comments by using more reason.

But then again, I remember the rules of the games, this is blood sport. So we just have entertainment, nothing much more.

Joey G - 7/8/2003

Really now, if MSNBC can have pay a nutball like Mr Savage, and if NBC can have Russert and 19th Century Fox can have Coultier and all the rest, why can't I ?

I can devise lies as well as they can, and be just as entertaining !!

( what's that? well, I know my politics aren't right wing enough... but that shouldn't really matter now... does it? )

Ralph E. Luker - 7/8/2003

Bill, You may have seen this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8793 from David Horowitz. When David questions right wing slash and burn attack, you gotta know its from la la land.

Mickey Mouse - 7/8/2003

No, I think you want to speak to Disney and Michael Moore.

Micky

Joey G - 7/8/2003

I try to ignore her, and mostly succeed, but the "liberal media" keep shoving her in my face.

Joey G - 7/8/2003

For a left wing Ann Coulier to exist, he/she would have to be saying things like
1. George W. is a coke snorting liar
2. Bill Bennett is a closet homosexual
Aah.. you get the idea.. make your own list

But most importantly, he/she would need to be on CNN, Fox, and other mainstream media doing so.

No one fits the bill, there is no liberal Ann Coultier today.

Too bad.

Joey G - 7/8/2003

>displaying there sexual prowess
Nudity and sex ain't the same thing. The vast majority of naked Woodstock hippies weren't having sex.


>leaving behind a large mess for others to clean up.
Not true. Woodstock hippies spent weeks cleaning up the Yasgers farm after the festival was over.

>children did, and suffered for it.
A loud lie, NYGuy. Statistically, Woodstock hippie children are more financially successful and have better jobs then the children of Nixon Republicans.

>No wonder people can wish for more troops to be killed in Iraq
A pretty disgusting smear, NYGuy. The only Americans who really wish for more troop deaths in Iraq are the right wingers who look forward to killing more Iraqi soldiers.

>Woodstock produced some scary people
Nonsense. The Woodstock generation grew up to be productive and happy citizens.

The John Birch Society and the Young Republicans produced all of the truly sick and demented traitors in America today.

Joey G. - 7/8/2003

>So anti-American are they that many of them actually opposed the war in Iraq as morally wrong (rather than simply a mistake).

Believing that invading a sovereign nation is morally wrong is anti-American? Nonsense.

Most American liberals are far more patriotic then any tin horn right-winger. Most American liberals believe that our nation should be an example of good behaviour, not a rapacious thug out to steal resources and exact revenge.

There's a huge gulf between Right Wing rhetoric and the actions of Right Wing power.

Joey G - 7/8/2003

She is no such thing. Michael Moore is quite funny, and is genuinely self deprecating. He also presents information that is accurate in the public record sense of the word. Ann Coultier does not try to be funny, is not funny, takes herself quite seriously, and consistantly presents nonsense as fact. Joe Conason is not known for spending long hours doing hard research, yet he can easily refute Coultier's nonsense with public record facts.

One other difference between Moore and Coultier, Moore gets almost no press outside the entertainment coverage, Coultier is inexplicably ubiquitious in the 'serious' political media.

Joey G - 7/8/2003

A secret Muslim radical sympathizer, Ann Coutier is currying favor with American conservatives in order to pass information to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussain. Her book proceeds go directly to Al Quada coffers and are used to finance Palastinian suicide bombers. At home she has a Koran autographed by Ayatollah Khomenei, and at least a half dozen Stinger missiles that she plans to use to shoot down passanger airplanes. Anyone who stands close enough can detect the unmistakable odor of hummis on her breath. She has enough VX nerve gas in her bathroom to kill a small town, if properly dispersed. Late at night she will turn off the apartment smoke detectors and burn a great American president in effigy, usually Ronald Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt.

Can I have a book deal now?

NYGuy - 7/8/2003

Josh,

Yes, we do remember Woodstock very well, pot smoking college students, running around naked, displaying there sexual prowess, discussing the intellectual problems of the day. They certainly presented a wonderful model for their children to follow. Unfortunately many of their children did, and suffered for it. By the way did you know the person who financed that event passed away about a year ago? He at least was a very decent man.

You make an interesting comment:

"By the 1980s, anti-communist rhetoric had been greatly de-emphasized compared to the 1960s."

Not sure what you are saying. Prof. Klinghoffer makes the following observation: “ Our founders knew that those lacking that right, (to vote) were but "slaves, . . . complete vassals, who have no voice to utter in choosing their rulers."

Since this would indicate that about 90-95% of the world’s population are in slavery what you saying? Are there still those who are advancing that failed Utopia for the salvation of the unwashed? A governing philosophy that lasted less than 100 years vs. a stable successful one that we have in the U. S. for the last 273 years. Hmm. Very interesting.

The world has changed dramatically since the 1960’s but it seems that old, failed, philosophies don’t die easily. No wonder people can wish for more troops to be killed in Iraq, but do we really need or want a “Million Mogadishu’s” for the sake of promoting communism. Even the Russians and Chinese don’t believe in it, as we enter the Technology Revolution period.

Woodstock produced some scary people, but I guess that is true of every decade.

NYGuy - 7/8/2003

Josh,

Yes, we do remember Woodstock very well, pot smoking college students, running around naked, displaying there sexual prowess, discussing the intellectual problems of the day. Irresponsible, leaving behind a large mess for others to clean up.

They certainly presented a wonderful model for their children to follow. Unfortunately many of their children did, and suffered for it. By the way did you know the person who financed that event passed away about a year ago? He at least was a very decent man.

You make an interesting comment:

"By the 1980s, anti-communist rhetoric had been greatly de-emphasized compared to the 1960s."

Not sure what you are saying. Prof. Klinghoffer makes the following observation: “ Our founders knew that those lacking that right, (to vote) were but "slaves, . . . complete vassals, who have no voice to utter in choosing their rulers."

Since this would indicate that about 90-95% of the world’s population are in slavery what you saying? Are there still those who are advancing that failed Utopia for the salvation of the unwashed? A governing philosophy that lasted less than 100 years vs. a stable successful one that we have in the U. S. for the last 273 years. Hmm. Very interesting.

The world has changed dramatically since the 1960’s but it seems that old, failed, philosophies don’t die easily. No wonder people can wish for more troops to be killed in Iraq, but do we really need or want a “Million Mogadishu’s” for the sake of promoting communism. Even the Russians and Chinese don’t believe in it, as we enter the Technology Revolution period.

Woodstock produced some scary people, but I guess that is true of every decade.

NYGuy - 7/8/2003

Josh,

Yes, we do remember Woodstock very well, pot smoking college students, running around naked, displaying there sexual prowess, discussing the intellectual problems of the day. Irresponsible, leaving behind a large mess for others to clean up.

They certainly presented a wonderful model for their children to follow. Unfortunately many of their children did, and suffered for it. By the way did you know the person who financed that event passed away about a year ago? He at least was a very decent man.

You make an interesting comment:

"By the 1980s, anti-communist rhetoric had been greatly de-emphasized compared to the 1960s."

Not sure what you are saying. Prof. Klinghoffer makes the following observation: “ Our founders knew that those lacking that right, (to vote) were but "slaves, . . . complete vassals, who have no voice to utter in choosing their rulers."

Since this would indicate that about 90-95% of the world’s population are in slavery what you saying? Are there still those who are advancing that failed Utopia for the salvation of the unwashed? A governing philosophy that lasted less than 100 years vs. a stable successful one that we have in the U. S. for the last 273 years. Hmm. Very interesting.

The world has changed dramatically since the 1960’s but it seems that old, failed, philosophies don’t die easily. No wonder people can wish for more troops to be killed in Iraq, but do we really need or want a “Million Mogadishu’s” for the sake of promoting communism. Even the Russians and Chinese don’t believe in it, as we enter the Technology Revolution period.

Woodstock produced some scary people, but I guess that is true of every decade.

Don Williams - 7/8/2003

Let's face it --Coulter comes from a social group where women are reared to think that they are entitled to a lifetime meal ticket in exchange for the "Pearl of Great Price" --i.e. intermittent sexual services of mediocre quality. That life strategy didn't work for Coulter, for obvious reasons, so she fell back on her other core competence: shooting off her mouth about things of which she knows nothing

She does have some redeeming qualities, however. In the right light --and with a bridle in her teeth -- she does a remarkable imitiation of Trigger , Roy Roger's golden palamino.

(Yes, I know the above is a bitchy ad hominem devoid of content. I'm doing my Ann Coulter imitation.)

Elia Markell - 7/8/2003

Dorothy Rabinowitz has called Ann Coulter the right's version of Maureen Dowd. Andrew Sullivan suggests her as the right's answer to Michael Moore. Perfectly appropriate equivalencies, both.

For those who attend to this site, I'd suggest also that Coulter has now become the right's version of Michael Lind and P.M. Carpenter. Something about America's actually quite narrow and pragmatic political spectrum just seems to enrage those who lust after the thrill of armageddon. Lefites are indeed entitled to rail about Coulter's support for Joe McCarthy. But let's not forget those on the left who routinely support and excuse vastly more brutal figures from both past and present.

NYGuy - 7/8/2003

Ralph,

Should thoughtful people take Judith Apter Klinghoffer’s clip and paste article in this week’s HNN and Joyce Appleby’s article on poverty and racism in last week’s HNN seriously”

One may not agree with Ann, but she writes better, is more coherent and logical and thus one can analyze and dispute what she says. That is not true of the other two and as it would be like analyzing a pile of dung.

But of course for young impressionable minds that accept anything they are told it may not make a difference since most who post on this board don’t seem to know the difference.

Josh Greenland - 7/8/2003

The Ann Coulter paragraphs above are the first of her writing I've seen. Just on the basis of this I'd say she's a pathological liar, or one of those new breed of politicos who thinks she'll "win" if she rams enough blatant lies past everyone.

I was very young in the 1950s but I remember the 1960s. By modern standards, politicians at the federal level were RABIDLY anti-communist, ALL of them. Anti-communism was a tolerable obsession when the country was socially and economically stable, but by the late 1960s inflation and unemployment were rising, there were massive race riots, including in the military, and casualties in the Vietnam War kept getting worse, with rates of death and injury for US personnel in country that made US deaths in both Iraq wars look insignificant. Anti-communism was the battle cry of both congressional Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, who continued to support the war into the 1970s. But by then an overwhelming majority of Americans were against it, and the troop and then the money spigot was shut off.

Just as anti-semitism was discredited by Nazi genocide, the doctrine of anti-communism at any cost was discredited by the Vietnam War, for Republicans and conservatives as well as Democrats and liberals. By the 1980s, anti-communist rhetoric had been greatly de-emphasized compared to the 1960s.

Ralph E. Luker - 7/8/2003

Bill:
Is this the sentence in which you claim that Sullivan says that he didn't read the book?
"My take, having read (or tried to read) Ann Coulter's appallingly bad new book." The sentence simply doesn't say what you claim it does. Maybe that's why it wasn't quoted on HNN.
If you won't consider Sullivan's word as a conservative that Coulter's _Treason_ is a wretched book, consider that Ronald Radosh also rejects its discrediting of the careful work of conservative scholars in the last twenty years by the very carelessness and extremity of her accusations.
For my part, Don Kates has it: Joe McCarthy never exposed a single real Communist subversive. He was a shameless self-server who carelessly targeted and smeared innocent people. And Sullivan has it: Coulter is the Michael Moore of the right. For big bucks, they clown and outrage us. Thoughtful people, left and right, don't take either of them seriously.

Bill Heuisler - 7/8/2003

Treason is very good, fast-moving and deadly accurate. She knows her history and footnotes almost everything. Coulter exposes Leftist hypocrisy and the Libs will hate her for it. But these two don't do it very well...all sturm and drang, no facts.

Conason insults conservatives and derides Coulter, but can't find serious fault with her book.
"The likelihood is that Coulter's many avid fans are as conveniently ignorant...So the rubes who buy "Treason" will believe her..."
Then he attacks Ann Coulter viciously:
"Coulter demonstrates that she is both an intentional liar and an incompetent writer..." His proof? "Dean Acheson...was urged to avoid the New York reception by Secretary of State James Byrnes, not Truman." Oooh, big mistake. And it was the only damn mistake the nasty little Liberal could cite, the only one.

Sullivan defends, "liberals who were ferociously anti-Communist. Scoop Jackson? Harry Truman? John F Kennedy? Lyndon Vietnam Johnson?" Right. Truman was warned about Hiss and laughed. He defended the Rosenbergs to the end. Lyndon Johnson caused the deaths of thousands of American fighting men because he didn't want to win. He and Robert Strange just wanted to "bring them to the bargaining table". But the kicker in the Sullivan critique is that in the beginning of his article on his own web site he admits he didn't read the book.

Why wasn't that quoted in HNN?
Bill Heuisler

don kates - 7/7/2003

Were there actual Communist spies in post-WWII Washington? Of course there were. And not one of them was exposed by Joseph McCarthy. They include the following (whose treason has now been verified by Soviet documents): Alger Hiss, exposed to a large extent by HUAC and Richard Nixon, but prosecuted by the Truman Administration Justice Department; the Rosenbergs who headed an entire spy ring others of whom were, like them, caught and prosecuted by the Truman Administration Justice Department. Contrary to what I had always believed, J. Robert Oppenheimer turns out to have been secretly a member of the Communist Party and to have shielded some other suspected spies, though perhaps he did not engage in espionage himself. And he was exposed and denied his security clearance by prosecuted by the Truman Administration.
In the mid-1930s and thereafter the federal government expanded enormously. Those hurriedly hired in the alphabet soup of new federal administrative agencies were often very liberal and some of them turned into Communists as the Depression went on. But the FBI (whose head was a close hanger-on of FDR) and a Justice Department headed by Democrats eventually ferreted them out. I am not an expert on McCarhty and would be open to hearing a reasoned defense of him. But my present understanding is that all McCarthy ever did was regurgitate (often with some wild yperbole) material supplied him by J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthy was not even a real anti-Communist, but rather a sociopath who used the Communists-in-government issue to distract attention from an investigation for his having accepted bribes from Pepsi-cola in order to influence administrators to give Pepsi-cola special consideration for sugar at a time when wartime sugar rationing was still in effect.
Many, if not most, current liberals can be accused of innate, senseless, knee-jerk anti-Americanism. So anti-American are they that many of them actually opposed the war in Iraq as morally wrong (rather than simply a mistake). But anti-Americanism is not "treason," however, and comparisons to Hiss, the Rosenbergs, etc. are not remotely warranted.