Yeah.
MAYBE she should have pointed out that Bruce Ramsey latter with other evidence believed she was a spy.
Maybe? Absolutely. Or just not used his book review as evidence for her thesis.
But that is not what Ann was getting at all, she was pointing out his thinking in this part of the case ONLY. Forget the rest of the case, it is NOT important at all.
And now we come to it. Ann Coulter accused Ramsey of "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union..." Obviously he has accepted the evidence that she is a spy, since his book review includes these words: "Coplon was a spy. In the 1990s, the government declassified intercepts of coded messages from the mid-1940s between Russian agents describing her in unmistakable terms."
Coulter, however, acts as if Ramsey does not believe that Coplon was a spy and never did in order to support her point. She's lying.
"Coulter, however, acts as if Ramsey does not believe that Coplon was a spy and never did in order to support her point. She's lying."
You're lying (or crazy).
She referred to a passage in a paper by an (OBSCURE) reviewer after having given scores of prior examples of how the left has ignored Soviet spying in the past...
And you think she is only talking about this (OBSCURE) reviewer's review?
(You do realize your hero's name doesn't even show up in the book's index. That's how vital his thoughts were to her argument.)
And this was meant to be the first of your many proofs of what a liar she is?
It simply proves what contortions you will go through to lie about her.
Sheesh!