Thursday, October 28, 2021
View Blog
Minimize
Apr 18

Written by: Diana West
Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:07 AM 

Believe it or not, another attack on American Betrayal -- the fifth sixth* such attack on me and my book at National Review Online, which started on the high road back in 2013 by questioning whether I was "house-trained."

[*I just noticed that NRO forgot to include its infamous "house-trained" attack in its queue of "Related" stories.]

And now?

For new readers, a note of explanation. I am once again compelled to respond to attacks as distinguished from normal, even critical reviews. After, by my count, 21 -- twenty-one! -- attacks from a tiny band of anti-American Betrayal extremists -- the cabal -- I will resort to boilerplate for the uninitiated: 

Cabal membership, it becomes plain, is limited to writers of multiple entries on my book that, as a condition of membership, must fail to intersect, let along grapple with its actual contents. Fabrications, ad hominem attacks are encouraged. (Some background on the cabal here for new readers.) 

Longtime readers are familiar with this strange, and, for some, endlessly fascinating saga in which the men of the cabal, all of a certain age, some of whom have made a second, post-Communist career as right-wingers, endlessly fulminate because I had the temerity to write a well-sourced and well-received book that defies the conventional wisdom as they think and write it.

What follows are brief extracts from the latest entry by Ron Capshaw -- apparently, his fifth (5th) such sally. I have stripped his essay down to inferences and charges only.

This latest on American Betrayal is headlined:

“FDR, Truman, and Ike: Not Communists, Just Naïfs”

The inference, natch, is that American Betrayal argues that these presidents were "Communists." 

NOT IN MY BOOK. (Readers of The Rebuttal: Defending American Betrayal from the Book-Burners, where this phrase repeats and repeats in highlighting some of the lies and fabrications that litter the original Rado-toxic mess, are invited to sing along.) 

Now for the excerpts from Capshaw #5:

To get at the type of thinking that declared [FDR, Truman and Eisenhower] to be consciously pro-Soviet, you have to go forward a few years from the early 1950s to the days of the John Birch Society in the late '50s.

NOT IN MY BOOK.

It was this group — or, to be more specific, their leader, Robert Welch — that charged FDR with deliberately partnering with Joe Stalin against Hitler to advance the Soviet empire,

NOT IN MY BOOK

who believed Truman and his secretary of state Dean Acheson had deliberately led U.S. soldiers into a deathtrap in Korea thus again aiding the Soviet Union by depleting U.S. manpower;

NOT IN MY BOOK

and who accused Eisenhower, based on his attempts to negotiate with Khrushchev and his refusal to put ground troops into Vietnam, of being a Soviet agent

NOT IN MY BOOK

While dealing with McCarthy only peripherally, Diana West’s American Betrayal dusts offthis view of FDR as a traitor

NOT IN MY BOOK

Diana West moves beyond merely defending McCarthy or portraying Roosevelt as naive to asserting a conscious treachery on the president's part.

NOT IN MY BOOK 

Had [FDR] been the Communist portrayed by West ...

NOT IN MY BOOK

Had [FDR] been the Bolshevik that West portrays him ...

NOT IN MY BOOK

West makes great hay of the fact that FDR diplomatically recognized the Soviet Union. 

ONE TRUE THING FINALLY. 

West uses FDR's decision to ignore Chambers' allegations as evidence of the Communist orientation of the administration.

NOT IN MY BOOK!!

West doesn’t consider the implications of her view that D-Day was a communist plot.

NO! THIS THOUGHT EXPERIMENT about D-Day, Harry Hopkins and influence operations is minutely analyzed for its implications in American Betrayal, beginning in Chapter Nine, available free online here. 

By West’s lights, [Chambers and Orwell] could have been saps, tools, or — dare I say it — conscious traitors.

NOT IN MY BOOK OR "BY MY LIGHTS" 

She also doesn’t consider that Roosevelt might not have been pro-Soviet as much as simply naïve about Stalin —

NB: One might be a pro-Soviet dupe – but that’s way too complex for this cabal.

Even more preposterous is her claim that Truman was pro-Communist

NOT IN MY BOOK! 

Also dubious is West’s argument, shared by right-wingers at the time, that the U.S. effort in Korea was a death trap orchestrated by Communists in the government

NOT IN MY BOOK!

Eisenhower is also suspect, in West’s view. She points to his summits with Khrushchev as proof of some type of Communist-directed plot, along with Ike’s refusal to put troops into Vietnam.

NOT IN MY BOOK -- no summits with Kruchschev, no Ike refusal to send troops to 'Nam, none of it!

Then, as is customary with the cabal, I am tagged "the mirror-image of Oliver Stone."

What a shameful and noxious disgrace.

Tags:
Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West