Rating: 
Summary: This joke is no joke
Review: As a conservative this book prompts me more than anything I have read in recent history to urge fellow conservatives to respond to outrageous garbage like this in a far more critical way. All you have to do is read the reviews submitted by those who are critical to see how easy it is to take shots at conservatives when writing like this is characterized as a representation of our view. We as conservatives will never have any credible or lasting influence on political direction and discourse if we rally behind charlatans who use absurd devices such as this book to grind out their personal bitterness and attempt to sell it as scholarship. It's conservatives who should be outraged by this travesty, not liberals. For liberals this book is a Christmas present. For conservatives it's now to time to once again defend ourselves as we always have to do when some irresponsible huckster gives the erroneous impression that we are all stupid.
Rating: 
Summary: STALIN'S USEFUL [DUPE]S EXPOSED AS SCOUNDRELS
Review: The hysterical anti-Ann Coulter "reviews" are the best endorsements that she could desire. The lunacy of her detractors should encourage everone to buy her timely book.No longer will the sheirk of "McCarthyism" be able to silence informed discussion. The publication of the Venona files of decoded Soviet communication with American agents is truly astonishing. Communist infiltration at the highest levels of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations was even WORSE than the badly slandered Wisconsin senator had told us. None of Coulter's critics seem to have read the Venona Secrets either. But liberals are never bothered with truth. They like smears, hate, guilt tripping, mindless phrases and pseudohistory. Their institutionalized lies about anti-communists are no longer tenable. Credulous useful [dupe]s will remain, and Stalin will still have divisions. But the liberals will no longer be able to lie through their teeth without having them knocked out by the truth.
Rating:
Summary: An Embarassed Republican
Review: If this book represents Republican/Conservative thoughts, opinions and ideas, we are doomed as a party. Utter nonsense and an insult to anyone with a 6th grade education in history or an ounce of common sense.
Rating: 
Summary: hack Vs hack
Review: let me tell you the book is good. Ms.Coulter, I tell is from the gut but, she also highlights what the liberals have been saying all along. She says that, the government must do in "America's best intrest" then I say ask your marine buddys to pack their bags from their bases around the world and go home. An army is for the defense, yes the government has to be proactive, but it does not mean poking their nose into every other countries affair and try to push your clout here and there. that leads to nothing else but retaliation. for example we have problems with Pakistan , but we dont go around asking for bases in Iran, Iraq etc. This is just one example there are other issues which come under the conservative list of " pursuit of happiness" that I have not mentioned, like trade issues. guess we have to start a bulletin board or blogs for this huh.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth At Last!
Review: Anyone who HA HA's this great expose is a traitor. We knew most of the material Ms. Coulter used but she had the drive to write about it! The truth is out. She's now naming names!
Rating:
Summary: Excellent historical review of spys and espionage
Review: My wonderful wife bought me this book because she knows I like history and uncensored information about history. Ann's research on the subject of spys and espionage in our government at the time period covered in her book was remarkable. I would highly suggest TREASON for anyone interested in American and World History in areas that cover politics, spys and espionage.
Rating:
Summary: Historically Inaccurate
Review: Any sane Conservative would do well to distance themselves from this woman. A number of conservative writers have come out speaking very negatively about her latest book. Here are a few tidbits that Andrew Sullivan (a well known conservative columnist) wrote about Ann: ...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....
Rating:
Summary: Schlock Mistress
Review: I was surprized to see that Ann Coulter does not recommend
Mein Kampf as additional reading!
This book is drivel from a knee-jerk reactionary bimbo who should be hailed as a female Wally George.
Rating: 
Summary: The only "treason" occuring here is this book.
Review: I checked out this book to see what all the fuss was about. Of course I knew that conservative du jour Ann Coulter was trying to attack the Democratic party with every shred of evidence she could find. She supports the Bush administration with no clear thought of reality. THERE ARE NO WEAPONS IN IRAQ, ANN! If the Republicans are so good, I'm wondering why they aren't focusing more on strengthening security on our borders instead of spending that money on attacking other nations for their oil (IE: Dick Cheyney's former VP of Halliburton). Ann is once again in denial about her own party and failed to recognize the current Administration blurring of Church and State, and all the crimes that have been committed under Republican Presidents (can you say... watergate?). It is true that Democrats have their flaws, but this book is way too biased on her part and should be shelved in the "Brainwash" section. Maybe Ann should wake up and smell the coffee... and find out who's been brewing up all these lies- HERSELF. Find something less biased with at leased some sense of reality.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought-provoking but also disturbing pulp history
Review: It's hard to hate a book that bashes communism. So I am less critical of "Treason" than I might be, but less admiring of it than I could have been.
Meaning no disrespect, but one appreciates Ann Coulter's new book more if one's knowledge of 20th century history is limited to Elvis Presley. For example, persons who thought they knew something about 20th century history will be astonished to learn from Coulter that the Cuban Missile Crisis, which resulted in the Soviet Union withdrawing its nuclear missiles from Cuba, was a humiliating defeat for America.
History is not kind to the thesis of Coulter's book. Take Coulter's vilification of Harry Truman for being soft on communism. That is hard to reconcile with the Truman Doctrine. That doctrine arose when communist insurgencies threatened Greece and Turkey. Truman went to the isolationist Republican Congress and persuaded it to supply $400,000,000 in aid to those countries. In so doing, Truman announced that America would "support free peoples" against "attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure." He declared America's material support of free peoples "against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes." Not to mention that even before the announcement of the Truman Doctrine, Truman sent a naval battle group to the Mediterranean to challenge Soviet aggression there.
As much as Coulter reviles Truman, even calling him a "dupe of the communists", it is strange that Condoleeza Rice told Time Magazine that she considered Truman to be the man of the last century. But what does Condoleeza Rice know? She is only Bush's National Security Advisor. Coulter is a lawyer. Never mind that Truman created the CIA and the National Security Agency and fought the Korean War.
Speaking of the Korean War, Coulter excoriates Truman for supposedly burdening Douglas MacArthur with politically-based constraints that kept him from winning the war, then relieving him of command. MacArthur was a great man, and his landing at Inchon was brilliant, but he was also a tired man. When he was relieved, his troops were demoralized and south of Seoul. Matthew Ridgeway took over, energized the troops, re-took Seoul, and pushed above the 38th parallel.
Just as Coulter reviles Truman, she effuses praise on Joseph McCarthy. It's too bad that Coulter didn't write in the 1950's. If iconic Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower had read her book, maybe he would have despised McCarthy less.
On the subject of McCarthy, Coulter points to the recently de-classified Venona cable interceptions to show that some of the persons that McCarthy accused were indeed Soviet spies. To Coulter, this means that McCarthy was a Great Man, as opposed to proof of the old adage that sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut. Even her revered Richard Nixon distanced himself from McCarthy's tactics, in 1960 saying that it was vital to use a rifle instead of a shotgun to ferret out communists.
Coulter is adroit at omission. She showcases the popularity of McCarthy by citing a Gallup poll that showed that Americans were 50 percent pro-McCarthy and 29 percent con. She claims only the nasty, effete liberals in the media and Congress opposed McCarthy. She apparently did not know of a Gallup poll taken only six months later, after the Army-McCarthy hearings, that showed a dramatic reversal in McCarthy's popularity: 35 percent pro and 45 percent con.
As an aside, Coulter castigates historians of the McCarthy era for relying on secondary sources rather than original sources, as expressed in their footnotes. Naturally, many readers at this point in the book will flip back to Coulter's own footnotes to discover -- well, I won't spoil the surprise.
To her credit, Coulter is persuasive in attributing the fall of the Soviet empire to Ronald Reagan, but I can't credit her claim that Reagan won the Cold War by himself. There were many factors, including the Soviet Union's systemic economic vulnerability and the fortunate presence of a President with the will and intelligence to exploit it. The Reagan administration might have benefited from a high-level Soviet defector who described the economic vulnerability of the Soviet Union. Histories and memoirs will one day reveal whether this influenced Reagan's policy.
On a personal level, what I find most disturbing in Coulter's book is her statement "Liberals choose Man. Conservatives choose God." She reiterates this point in her conclusion: "Conservaties believe man was created in God's image; liberals believe they are God." I have lived among Christians all my life. I was even a Christian worker in China for two years. I have known many Christians who were liberals. I have known pastors who were raging liberals. Perhaps the rejoinder is that they were not real Christians. But if the quality of one's walk with God is what really counts, I must say that among all the Christians I have known, only two were Christ-like. One was a seminary professor and the other was a secretary from Brazil. And I could not tell you their political orientation -- conservative or liberal -- because those labels simply did not attach to them in any visible, important way. This is something that Ms. Coulter should pause to consider as she provokes a jihad against liberalism.
| 
