- Jan 20, 2001
- 10,737
- 0
- 0
Conservative Book Service
First a mixed bag of reviews . . .
After her slam fest is over, the only really useful idiots are those useful to Ms Charen by buying the book. It has no more depth than my cat's water dish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm 56 years old and can remember much of what the author describes. I gave it a "Very Good" because I got angry as I read this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the most thoroughly documented text on the 50 years of manipulation by the Democrat / (Socialist) party in the U.S. I recommend it to all my friends. It is actually frieghtening to find what was being taught in our schools and broadcast on most of the major news outlets and "the papers of record" such as the NY Times for the past 50 years. Liberals should not read this book. If they dare they could find that they have been low level useful idiots their entire lives.
The network news anchor who pronounced at the height of the Cold War, "Despite what many Americans think, most Soviets do not yearn for capitalism or Western-style democracy"
I think they are panning the capitalism and corrupt Western-style democracy but they like democracy.
How liberals responded to each episode of Soviet criminality by providing tit for tat examples of supposed American wrongdoing
Sounds like Democrats and Republicans arguing about who's administration was less corrupt.
Each new Communist is different: how liberals were always eager to believe the best of the latest revolutionary movement
Pinochet, Marcos, Sudharto, Sandinistas, Noriega, early Saddam, late Musharaff . . .
The famous liberal economist who declared in the 1980s, "What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth"
I wonder if he was talking about the military-industrial complex in America?
How the media used distortion and outright lies in reporting on the war in Vietnam -- by, for instance, fabricating "reports" of civilian deaths caused by U.S. forces, and fostering the media myth that the South Vietnamese would not fight
I guess Kerry didn't write this section.
Leading leftists who actively rooted for a communist victory in Southeast Asia -- and to this day haven't acknowledged the horror of what they achieved
I thought current US doctrine was that unipolarity brings peace?
Gaga over Gorbachev: what liberals eagerly overlooked in order to portray the new Soviet dictator as a reforming liberalizer
Pinochet, Fujimori, Noriega, Sandinistas, Sudharto, early Saddam, late Musharraf
Liberals react to the shootdown of KAL 007 -- and somehow miss the point that most Americans got instantly
Damn I might have to read the book to find out what I missed <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
[L=http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/mcdonald/kal/kal2.htm">Weird story about KAL 007</a>]http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/mcdonald/kal/kal2.htm[/L][/L]
How "nuclear freeze" advocates popularized wildly speculative theories like "nuclear winter" to push their cause
What's more suspect . . . nuclear weapons are bad or nuclear weapons are good?
Debunked: liberal canards about Cuba's "model health care system" and "universal literacy"
To my knowledge, there isn't a country on the planet that does more with less than Cuba
How the New York Times equated the invasion of Grenada to free American hostages with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan!
Yeah, that's lame . . . we won in Grenada.
How the Elian Gonzalez affair proved that liberals learned nothing about Communism from history, from the accounts of refugees, or from its spectacular implosion in the Eastern bloc.
Man that kid is going to rule Cuba one day.
First a mixed bag of reviews . . .
After her slam fest is over, the only really useful idiots are those useful to Ms Charen by buying the book. It has no more depth than my cat's water dish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm 56 years old and can remember much of what the author describes. I gave it a "Very Good" because I got angry as I read this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the most thoroughly documented text on the 50 years of manipulation by the Democrat / (Socialist) party in the U.S. I recommend it to all my friends. It is actually frieghtening to find what was being taught in our schools and broadcast on most of the major news outlets and "the papers of record" such as the NY Times for the past 50 years. Liberals should not read this book. If they dare they could find that they have been low level useful idiots their entire lives.
The network news anchor who pronounced at the height of the Cold War, "Despite what many Americans think, most Soviets do not yearn for capitalism or Western-style democracy"
I think they are panning the capitalism and corrupt Western-style democracy but they like democracy.
How liberals responded to each episode of Soviet criminality by providing tit for tat examples of supposed American wrongdoing
Sounds like Democrats and Republicans arguing about who's administration was less corrupt.
Each new Communist is different: how liberals were always eager to believe the best of the latest revolutionary movement
Pinochet, Marcos, Sudharto, Sandinistas, Noriega, early Saddam, late Musharaff . . .
The famous liberal economist who declared in the 1980s, "What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth"
I wonder if he was talking about the military-industrial complex in America?
How the media used distortion and outright lies in reporting on the war in Vietnam -- by, for instance, fabricating "reports" of civilian deaths caused by U.S. forces, and fostering the media myth that the South Vietnamese would not fight
I guess Kerry didn't write this section.
Leading leftists who actively rooted for a communist victory in Southeast Asia -- and to this day haven't acknowledged the horror of what they achieved
I thought current US doctrine was that unipolarity brings peace?
Gaga over Gorbachev: what liberals eagerly overlooked in order to portray the new Soviet dictator as a reforming liberalizer
Pinochet, Fujimori, Noriega, Sandinistas, Sudharto, early Saddam, late Musharraf
Liberals react to the shootdown of KAL 007 -- and somehow miss the point that most Americans got instantly
Damn I might have to read the book to find out what I missed <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
[L=http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/mcdonald/kal/kal2.htm">Weird story about KAL 007</a>]http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/mcdonald/kal/kal2.htm[/L][/L]
How "nuclear freeze" advocates popularized wildly speculative theories like "nuclear winter" to push their cause
What's more suspect . . . nuclear weapons are bad or nuclear weapons are good?
Debunked: liberal canards about Cuba's "model health care system" and "universal literacy"
To my knowledge, there isn't a country on the planet that does more with less than Cuba
How the New York Times equated the invasion of Grenada to free American hostages with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan!
Yeah, that's lame . . . we won in Grenada.
How the Elian Gonzalez affair proved that liberals learned nothing about Communism from history, from the accounts of refugees, or from its spectacular implosion in the Eastern bloc.
Man that kid is going to rule Cuba one day.