You mentioned agendas in response to a post dominated with comments by the historians. In that context, of course I primarily took it as a reference to them. Sure, historians may have agendas, but the reputation of these particular historians is impeccable. They do not publish shoddy scholarship, and it has all been basically anti- Communist.
David Horowitz is someone who, up until now, liked Coulter, and even published her. The Treason Symposium was on the Free Repblic site. Only Conason would have had a highly partisan animus against Coulter, and even that does not mean he is wrong in factual criticism.
If you have not "discredited" anyone else, I am glad, but it does not explain the comment you made, which implied that I was only paying attention to persons with agendas that would inherently put them at odds with Coulter.
I have seen her defend her book on tv, and I have read her as her columns have gone downhill. I am in a position to make generalizations about her and her book, what I am not in the position of doing is making detailed criticism. For that, I have relied on others, by posting various factual criticisms. That is common sense...... |
