Mc Carthyism another lie by the left.

Quote:

---

I have permission to send you this excellent essay by Phil Brennan:





Forget Hell! Joe McCarthy was Right - and the Left was Viciously Wrong



We both read the same piece in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. But Jude Wanniski, with whom I almost always agree, had a different slant than I had on the story: The Rehabilitation of Sen. Joe McCarthy.



That piece, a reasonably even-handed treatment of the latest revelations about the extent of Soviet espionage and penetration of U.S. institutions, makes clear that the remnants of the left wing anti-anti communist movement are very uncomfortable with the obvious conclusion that must be drawn from the revelation that many of those who liberals believed were victims of alleged McCarthyite smears were Soviet agents after all.



Jude thinks that the time may be here to begin to forgive and forget -- and he cites personal reasons for so believing that I find hard to dispute. His approach is fully in line with the Lord's admonition to avoid judging others -- to forgive our enemies a limitless number of times. I see it differently. I am aware that I am bound by the Catholic faith we both share to look for the plank in my own eye before looking for the specks in the eyes of others, and I know that I am also bound to offer forgiveness to those who offend me. BUT, as much as I am aware that I have huge planks blurring my own vision, I am also aware that forgiveness requires remorse from the putative forgivee -- and I find precious little of that from those who savaged McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and scores of others who dared to expose a real menace in our midst.



The Times' story narrows it's focus to Soviet spying by such darlings of the left as Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. It fails utterly to address the even more serious issue of Soviet penetration of American institutions -- and the influence that the Soviets were able to exert over those institutions. For example, the presence of Alger Hiss at Roosevelt's elbow at the Yalta conference where a dying FDR acceded to the surrender of Eastern Europe to Joseph Stalin. Hiss's influence at Yalta was far deadlier than the secrets he fed to his GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) handlers. And that was just one instance of the influence; he and other secret Soviet agents were able to exert over U.S. policy.



Jude admits that Joe McCarthy, like all of us, was a flawed human being, and quotes Bill Buckley along the same lines. Bill cedes the fact that on many occasions Joe simply was out of line. But the thrust of his campaign against Soviet stooges among us was right on target most of the time.



I refuse to simply close the books on the so-called McCarthy era because the excesses of the far-left against anti-communists were forerunners of the excesses of the liberals of the present day. They smeared their foes, lied about them, and created a whole slew of myths that remain current to this day. And they continue to use the same tactic; take for example the disgraceful behavior of the liberal Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings or Senate Democrats who stymied the Thompson Committee investigation into Chinese espionage and their illegal campaign contributions to the Democrats and Clinton/Gore.



Let's start with the phrase McCarthyism -- a slander the left simply loves to hang around the necks of anybody who happens to disagree with them and tries to counter their deadly influence over American life. Do any of those who throw the word around have the faintest idea of where that word was coined? Are they aware that it was hatched in the bowels of number 3, Dzherzinsky Square -- headquarters of the KGB in Moscow? Or that it was first used in the columns of the communist newspaper, the Daily Worker before the left wing media and their liberal allies eagerly picked it up for use against anti-communists, thereby doing exactly what the Soviets expected them to do?



Then there's the matter of the source of many of Joe's accusations -- accusations being proved today by release of the so-called Venona Intercepts -- of Soviet cable traffic whose code was broken back in the mid-forties and remained top secret until recently. These intercepted cables proved that there were over 350 Americans spying for the Soviets, and enabled investigators to identify about half of them. Joe McCarthy had access to the information contained in the top secret Venona intercepts -- access given him by J. Edgar Hoover and others concerned with the extent of Soviet espionage and penetration -- but he could not defend himself against charges of recklessly accusing people of being Soviet agents by revealing the source of his information without alerting the Soviets that some of their most important secrets were known to U.S. intelligence.



We hear much about the plight of the so-called victims of McCarthyism -- an alleged army of people unfairly targeted by the Wisconsin Senator. Gallons of tears are shed over Hollywood actors, writers and others working in films. The so-called blacklist that allegedly kept innocent people from working in Hollywood (despite the fact that their left-wing friends continued to use many of these identified members of the Soviet led American communist party -- lately revealed as totally an instrument of the Soviet Union -- while concealing their assistance).



There are a couple of things wrong with this story. First, these people were not what they are called today -- victims of McCarthyism. Joe had nothing to do with the Hollywood hearings which cited the communist membership of those accused -- they were solely the work of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. And the so-called victims were members of the Soviet-dominated U.S. Communist party.



Secondly, the real blacklist was composed of anti-communists -- famous and not so famous actors and directors who could not find work because of their anti-communist activities. People like Adolph Menjou, Ward Bond, Bruce Cabot -- all members of John Wayne's anti-communist Motion Picture Alliance. Wayne courageously stood up for these people -- and you can see most of them in reruns of countless Wayne films. He used them over and over, keeping them working when nobody else would hire them. They were the real victims of the real blacklist.



The viciousness directed at conservatives and anti-communists by the left during the í40s and í50s is displayed today against pro-lifers, religious conservatives and all others opposed to the socialist agenda that liberals seek to impose on America. And the socialism that they espouse is every bit as coercive as the Soviet communist system with which they could find no wrong in the days of Joe McCarthy. Communism, after all, was described simply as "socialism in a hurry."



The heirs of the people who could tolerate Stalin's murderous regime which slew people by the millions are the people who find it easy to tolerate the horror of partial birth abortion -- and the sale of the body parts of the tiny victims of this holocaust. And they employ the same smear tactics and lies against pro-lifers that their forerunners used against McCarthy, Hoover and their fellow anti-communists.



Moreover, the left today perpetuates their lies and myths. The smear tactics used by the Soviets to discredit J. Edgar Hoover by falsely charging that he was a cross-dressing sexual deviant are taken as fact by the media despite the fact that it has been revealed that the charges -- utterly unproven and absurd -- originated in the KGB's disinformation shop.



Does anybody really believe that the most famous cop in America -- a man almost paranoid about maintaining his privacy, as well as being a target for every red and crook in the nation, could show up at parties dressed as a woman and not have the fact explode in headlines within hours? C'mon, give me a break!



These are a few of the reasons why I simply refuse to forgive and forget -- these people and their heirs are still at it. When they repent, I'll forgive.

---

Heres more

LINK

Joseph McCarthy was not a subtle or even a pleasant man, but I do think he did a service to the United States by bringing into the light the threat of Communist infiltration. Some of his tactics were a little over the top, but he is nowhere close to being the bogeyman the left portrays him as. And in point of fact he was largely correct in his assessment of a Communist conspiracy in the US government, and the threat that such agents posed to the United States.

The defection of Igor Gouzenko, a code clerk in the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, in early September, 1945 alerted Canada and the US to the dangers of Soviet agents, and helped to roll up some of their spy network's in Canada (22 communist agents). Sen. Joseph McCarthy brought the inaction of the American government on this issue to the forefront.

The collapse of Communism opened files of not only internal Soviet spy documents but also gave the FBI, CIA, and American scholars access to the files of the American Communist Party that had been hidden in a Russian warehouse since 1950.

High level spies within the United States government;

Alger Hiss who had been the number three man at State behind Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk, and who, most assuredly, at some point, would have eventually been Secretary of State.

Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who purposely withheld allocated funding for the Chinese Nationalists, during their Civil War, that destroyed their currency and, thus, their efforts against Mao's Communists.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been conduits for even more damaging information than the atom bomb, for which they were executed.

Lauchlin Currie, Special Assistant to F.D.R. Samuel Dickstein, member of the House of Representatives from Brooklyn.

William and Martha Dodd, son and daughter of the U.S. ambassador to Germany in the 1930's.

Lawrence Duggan, State Department Director of Latin American Affairs.

Harold Ickes, Sr., father of Clinton's impeachment flack, who was Secretary of the Interior.

William Weisband, U.S. Army Signal Security Agency.

Klaus Fuchs and Ted Hall, Soviet agents at Los Alamos

Robert Oppenheimer, the Director of the Atom Bomb Project at Los Alamos, New Mexico denied ever being a member of the Communist Party, but evidence seems to suggest that he may well have been.

His wife was. His brother was. His mistress was. As were many of his closest associates at the University of California. In addition, Oppenheimer was one of those scientists in the 40's who thought that all scientific information should be shared universally for the good of mankind.

On this basis alone the idea that he should not have been deprived of his security clearance doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Gregory Kheifetz was operating under cover as Soviet vice consul in San Francisco from late 1941 to the summer of 1944. He claims to have recruited Oppenheimer. Gregg Herken points out that this may have been an attempt by Kheifetz "to avoid execution for failure to perform while he was the NKVD’s main spy in the Bay area.”

Or it may not. Kheifetz was cleared of the charges against him, promoted and given a medal. He was chief of section of Department S, atomic espionage, until he fell victim to the anti-semitic purge of 1947. It would seem that Oppenheimer was never formally recruited as a Soviet agent which they tried to do in 1944. Prior to this he may have just been a "friend of the Soviet Union".

The Merkulov letter to Beria raises the question of whether Robert Oppenheimer was a spy for the Soviet Union during the wartime period when he directed the Manhattan project.
------------------------------------
Letter from Boris Merkulov to Lavrenty Beria

Letter from Boris Merkulov (USSR People’s Commissar for State Security) to Lavrenty Beria (USSR People’s Commissar for Internal Affairs), 2 October 1944

2 October 4 [1944] TOP SECRET
1107/M URGENT
Copy # 2

PEOPLE’S COMMISSAR FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE USSR
GENERAL COMMISSAR OF STATE SECURITY

Comrade BERIA, L.P.

In accordance with your instruction of 29 September 1944, NKGB USSR continues measures for obtaining more detailed information on the state of work on the [problem of uranium] [handwritten] and its development abroad.
In the period 1942-1943 important data on the start of work in the [USA] [handwritten] on this problem was received from our foreign agent network using the contacts of Comrade Zarubin and Kheifitz in their execution of important tasks in line with the executive committee of the Comintern.
In 1942 one of the leaders of scientific work on [uranium] in the USA, Professor Oppenheimer while being an unlisted (nglastny) member of the apparat of Comrade Browder] [handwritten] informed us about the beginning of work.
On the request of Comrade Kheifitz, confirmed by [Comrade Browder,] [handwritten] he provided cooperation in access to research for several of our tested sources including a relative of [Comrade Browder] [handwritten].
Due to complications of the operational situation in the [USA,] [handwritten] dissolution of the [Comintern] [handwritten] and explanations of Comrades Zarubin and Kheifitz on the Mironov affair it is expedient to immediately sever contacts of leaders and activists of the [American Communist Party] [handwritten] with scientists and specialists engaged in work on [uranium.] [handwritten]

NKGB requests the consent of the leadership [Instancia].

PEOPLE’S COMMISSAR OF STATE SECRUITY USSR
Commissar of State Security First Rank
Signed/ MERKULOV


Handwritten note by Beria “Correct”. 2October 1944


Printer—3 copies
No.1 Comrade Beria
No.2 Sec. NKGB
No.3 Dept. NKGB

[Ed. Note: On page 1, signed acknowledgement of L. Beria “Received” signed by Merkulov on 3 October 1944 .
The original document was typed with blank underlined sections. The missing information was written in later by hand. This security measure made sensitive information available only to “need to know “ officials and was a standard Soviet security practice.]
-----------------------------------

man.....i gotta turn conservative....


you guys obviously have acess to the best drugs out there don´t ya?

come on....share the goods man! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

man.....i gotta turn conservative....


you guys obviously have acess to the best drugs out there don´t ya?

come on....share the goods man! ~D

---

It called reality man! And it's some really powerful stuff, but you have be careful about how much you take all at once. Liberals especially, never having tried it before need to go slowly. ~D

Well actually the reality is that insane bastard wanted to nuke China and North Korea at the same time. That would have end in millions of people being killed, and a lot more sick even here in Canada.

I haven't read the article because frankly any article that speaks well of this guy does not deserve my attention.

Have fun. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

I haven't read the article because frankly any article that speaks well of this guy does not deserve my attention.

---

Worried it might challenge your preconcieved notions? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Feh. McCarthy was nothing but a Christian Extremist who climbed the ladder by blanket-smearing his political opposition as "Pro-Communist". Him and J. Edgar Hoover are rank highest on my list of early-mid 20th century bastardizers of the constitution.

---

Ah blind hate - will take your far in life. To bad McCarthy was already a Senator before he started his Anti-communist campaign - or your theory might actually stand up.

However some tidbits of information on Senator McCarthy - some written by individuals that detest him.

Quote:

---

It began in 1950, three years after he had taken his seat in the Senate, where he had seemed a dim and inconsiderable figure. It ended in 1954, when the Senate passed a resolution of censure against him. That was three years before his death at the age of fony-eight. Both his rise and his fall were accomplished with breath-taking speed

---

Lets see he climbed the Ladder of Politics - yea right.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilre...arthy-bio.html

Quote:

---

There is injustice as well as imprecision in both meanings; if patriotism can hardly be reduced to tracking down Marxists in the pastry kitchens of the Pentagon or the bindery of the Govemment Printing Office, neither is the late Senator's sumame to be placed at the center of all the constellations of political unrighteousness. He was not, for example, totalitarian in any significant sense, or even reactionary. These terms apply mainly to the social and economic order, and the social and economic order didn't interest him in the slightest. If he was anything at all in the realm of ideas, principles, doctrines, he was a species of nihilist; he was an essentially destructive force, a revolutionist without any revelutionary vision, a rebel without a cause.

---

BP might like that little quote.

Quote:

---

His early years in the Senate were unimpressive, but in 1949, with several U.S. Cold War setbacks and an increasingly anti-communist political atmosphere at home, McCarthy found a cause. In February 1950, in Wheeling, West Virginia, he made the first of a series of claims that he had the names of "known communists" who were in the employ of the State Department. It was the beginning of a personal witch hunt for communists in the government that lasted for more than five years. McCarthy rarely provided any solid evidence to back up his claims, but in the political climate of the time his accusations and subsequent investigations nonetheless ended many a career and damaged a good number of lives.

After winning re-election in 1952, McCarthy became chairman of the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, a position he used to launch many of his investigations of government officials and agencies. He did not shy away from questioning the integrity of people such as George C. Marshall, or even President Eisenhower. The latter disliked McCarthy intensely but refused to "get in the gutter with him" and never denounced the senator publicly. However, by 1953 a seemingly out-of-control McCarthy was making many enemies. His investigation of the activities of an Army dentist, Maj. Irving Peress, eventually led to his downfall. In 1954, the Army launched its counterattack, charging that McCarthy was seeking preferential treatment for a consultant, David Schine, who in 1953 had been drafted into the Army. Eventually McCarthy's own subcommittee decided to hold hearings on the matter, the Army-McCarthy hearings. The televised hearings fully exposed McCarthy as irresponsible and dishonest. In December 1954, the Senate voted to censure him. McCarthy never repented, but he quickly descended into irrelevance and alcoholism. He died of a liver ailment in Bethesda, Maryland, on May 2, 1957, at age 47.

---

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war...iles/mccarthy/

Even CNN doesn't make the claim that you are about McCarthy.

Someone needs to do some more reading up on McCarthy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

Oh by the way no where in my readings does it state McCarthy was a Christian Extremist. Care to provide the supporting evidence for such a claim?

McCarthy was a great, great man. Too bad he wasn't president. America would have won the cold war then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

McCarthy was a great, great man. Too bad he wasn't president. America would have won the cold war then.

---

Naw McCarthy was many things - but he was not great, nor was the villian that he is often protrayed to be. He was a basic middle of the road to bum of a senator who got a 5 minute spotlight because he wanted to route communist spies out of the government.

Many of the things that people complain about when they mention McCarthyism was done by others - especially the Committee on Un-American Activities which was a house committee

Quote:

---

.McCarthy is often incorrectly described as part of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which is well known for the investigation of Alger Hiss which helped bring Richard Nixon into prominence. HUAC was established in May of 1938 as the "Dies Committee" before McCarthy was elected to the Federal office, and, being a House committee, had no connection with McCarthy who served in the Senate. In 1953, playwright Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, an allegory for McCarthyism. This was probably the primary cause for Miller being brought before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1956.

---

Quote:

---

McCarthy might not have been a Christian Extremist, per se, but he was just as bad. He used Christianity to fuel his anti-communist Witch-hunt.

"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between Communistic Atheism and Christianity."

---

I guess you could say that about the whole congress then. Isnt this when they put in god we trust on our coins and put one nation under god in the pledge of alligance. How many times to we have to tell you that the US is a christain nation. It still is in that most people here are or consider themselves to be christains. Man Linclon and the founding fathers must be really far out there. Also the witch hunt bit has been pretty much debunked if you do some research or even read what posted here.

I am astounded everyday how often the people on this forum who consider themselves Conservatives, love to collectively delude themselves.

Quote:

---

Debunked? I see a bunch of opinionated quotes, is all. You cannot debunk the witch-hunt. J. Edgar Hoover's actions cemented it as fact.

---

Have you been reading the same thread as I have? ~:confused:

The funny thing is that everytime someone calls them conservative they say they are Libertarians. LOL, hilarrious. Especially Gawain, he started the Conservative Club for Pluto's sakes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

I am astounded everyday how often the people on this forum who consider themselves Conservatives, love to collectively delude themselves.

---

Have to say I agree. It's like rational thought and evaluation have completely left them. I'm pretty sure that they've become some sort of Borg. ~D I'm just waiting for their avatars to change to something more borg like.

Quote:

---

The funny thing is that everytime someone calls them conservative they say they are Libertarians. LOL, hilarrious. Especially Gawain, he started the Conservative Club for Pluto's sakes!

---

Do you even know what a libertarian is? Ill give you a hint, they dont work in the library ~D

Quote:

---

I am astounded everyday how often the people on this forum who consider themselves Conservatives, love to collectively delude themselves.

---

If thats what you call exposing liberal lies . Look whos accussing people of being deluded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

McCarthy might not have been a Christian Extremist, per se, but he was just as bad. He used Christianity to fuel his anti-communist Witch-hunt.

"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between Communistic Atheism and Christianity."

~McCarthy

---

Seems the other side agreed with him on the all-out battle!

"Capitalism and Christianity must be destroyed!" Karl Marx

Statement by Lenin: "What does it matter if three-fourths of world is killed, just so the remaining one-fourth is communist."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

The funny thing is that everytime someone calls them conservative they say they are Libertarians. LOL, hilarrious. Especially Gawain, he started the Conservative Club for Pluto's sakes!

---

Yes, I've noticed that as well... I know some real libertarians, and while they are an unusual lot, they are definitely not conservative, or liberal. Their views are far more mixed that those I've seen calling themselves libertarians here.

Quote:

---

Yes, I've noticed that as well... I know some real libertarians, and while they are an unusual lot, they are definitely not conservative, or liberal. Their views are far more mixed that those I've seen calling themselves libertarians here.

---

There is only one liberal libertain here and thats Ichi. Maybe you just arent talking about the right topics. As I said Ive never voted for a republican for even dogcatcher . You are the one who tries to portrray yourself as a moderate. I am an unabashed conservative but I dont tow any party line. What your definition of a libertarian? Im for going by the constitution plain and simple so I guess you could call me more of a contsitutionalist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Yes, I've noticed that as well... I know some real libertarians, and while they are an unusual lot, they are definitely not conservative, or liberal. Their views are far more mixed that those I've seen calling themselves libertarians here.

---

Libertarians and conservatives are related but they are not the same. I am an old style Conservative and have more than a few issues with Neocon Liberals.


The conservative Jim Kalb (whom he quotes) describes the differences thus:

From a theoretical standpoint ideological libertarianism is just another form of rationalism and not at all conservative. As a practical matter though it's mostly an ally of tradition because it opposes the main current enemy, the PC social-services state. The shortcoming of ideological libertarianism is that it says that a very few simple principles are enough for the whole of government and social life. Depending on circumstances that shortcoming can cause serious problems.

Tyler Cowen responds thus:

I would put it a little differently. I view conservatives as holding first a value-laden vision of what America should look like, involving tradition, family, and a certain sternness and emphasis on just desserts. Libertarians also hold a value-laden vision, but their rhetoric involves a greater emphasis on "liberal neutrality" and competing lifestyles... Libertarians share the conservative emphasis on just deserts, hence the immense popularity of Ayn Rand in the libertarian movement. It is for this reason that alliances between libertarians and conservatives are often possible - they share a key value or presupposition. Modern liberals tend to emphasize beneficience instead of just deserts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

McCarthy might not have been a Christian Extremist, per se, but he was just as bad. He used Christianity to fuel his anti-communist Witch-hunt.

"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between Communistic Atheism and Christianity."

~McCarthy

---

Ah - so you made up the allegation that McCarthy was a Christian Extremist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

I am astounded everyday how often the people on this forum who consider themselves Conservatives, love to collectively delude themselves.

---

So to discuss historical facts and perceptions - one must be a consevative - and must be delusional that the same time. Interesting.

Makes me wonder if I should start a thread about the tendency of arguements always breaking down to name calling, using buzz words that have no true application to the context of the discussion, and the tendency of those who claim to be liberial thinkers actually having closed minds to opinions that differ from their own.

Or better yet I should just refer to your comment as

Another comment of idioticy from the peanut gallery.

It says a lot that the liberals have chosen to insult the conservatives on this board, not contest the article. :inquisitive:

McCarthy was a bum. Who cares if people were communist? They had every right to be. If there were any Soviet agents, well that isn't good. But he had no right to do what he did. Being Communist isn't a crime, last I looked.

Quote:

---

The heirs of the people who could tolerate Stalin's murderous regime which slew people by the millions are the people who find it easy to tolerate the horror of partial birth abortion -- and the sale of the body parts of the tiny victims of this holocaust. And they employ the same smear tactics and lies against pro-lifers that their forerunners used against McCarthy, Hoover and their fellow anti-communists.

---

Mini Holocaust. Swell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

As I said Ive never voted for a republican for even dogcatcher .

---

Yes, you've said that before and it makes absolutely no sense to me based on what you have said. It's sort of like the "but I didn't inhale" defense.

Quote:

---

You are the one who tries to portrray yourself as a moderate.

---

Nope, I'm more of an independent or more accurately, a progressive. Some of my views are moderate, some conservative, some liberal.

Quote:

---

What your definition of a libertarian? Im for going by the constitution plain and simple so I guess you could call me more of a contsitutionalist.

---

Well you seem to embrace the old South interpretation of the constitution with all the negatives that entails, so perhaps "antebellum constitutionalist" would be a better description. The libertarians I know are primarily interested in dismantling govt. Sort of like isolationism taken to the extreme, and something that has been proven as unworkable by the entire history of mankind, where splintering and isolating leads to subjugation rather than liberty. They also seem to be blind to the problems of abuses by local authorities, since they support more local control of everything rather than higher authorities...and of course they don't see much need to pay for infrastructure. :dizzy2: Libertarianism from an economic/governance stance is "quaint" but I don't see any pragmatism in it for the modern world. Some of the libertarians I know are also somewhat conservative on individual rights, but not "evangelical" in their approach. Others are downright hostile to the religious Right.

Quote:

---

Yes, you've said that before and it makes absolutely no sense to me based on what you have said. It's sort of like the "but I didn't inhale" defense.

---

Oh you mean like my saying I was against the invasion of Iraq. Or that I want smaller government and the republicans have become no better than the deomcrats on this issue under Bush. Or that this administrations handling of our borders , borders on criminal neclect. Whats the use of all the security we have to go through if our borders are a so porous? Im not so different from you. I also consider myslef a moderate but a conservative one as opposed to your being a "proggressive" one. Thats what most liberals here call themselves now. I have never seen anyone as hypocritical on these boards as yourslef. It occurs in almost every post. Face it neither one of us is some way out on the fringe fanatic. On much we agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

McCarthy might not have been a Christian Extremist, per se, but he was just as bad. He used Christianity to fuel his anti-communist Witch-hunt.

"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between Communistic Atheism and Christianity."

~McCarthy

---

Pretty much any politician that mentions God or Christ ends up in your bad books huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

It says a lot that the liberals have chosen to insult the conservatives on this board, not contest the article. :inquisitive:

---

It says a lot more to me about conservatives that they try to rewrite history on every scoundrel and scumbag who ever had conservative ideas. Trash like the above isn't worth refuting, because it isn't worth reading in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

If you've read any of my posts on this subject at all, you'd know I am not against religious congressmen.

---

I've read many of your posts- including one's where you said you thought it was bad or wrong that a Congressman would allow their religion to influence their views... thus my statement. You've said you're opposed to any legislation or lack thereof that could have any religious rationale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I spent a little while wondering whether i should dignify this with a response. If you've read any of my posts on this subject at all, you'd know I am not against religious congressmen. What I am against are congressmen using religion to further their agenda. The Senate is supposed to be a pure, objective institution. And while it sure as hell rarely comes to that point, muddying everything up with religious bias is a bad choice any way you slice it.

---

Amen. (Yes, the irony is intentional.) I agree 100%, am so sick of religion being used as a political tool that I can't even express my level of frustration with it. It should be IRRELEVANT. I can tell you one thing, it has tested my faith listening to these pharisee's abuse their faith. It does give me a better understanding of how screwed up religious based govts are though.

So what political tools are OK? Or are just religion-based ones bad? And why?

Quote:

---

If, and only if that religious rationale contradicts pure and simple logic. It doens't take a genius to see that Religion uses common-sense heavily in some it's more basic principles, so saying it should not coincide at all is just silly.

---

Quote:

---

Amen. (Yes, the irony is intentional.) I agree 100%, am so sick of religion being used as a political tool that I can't even express my level of frustration with it. It should be IRRELEVANT. I can tell you one thing, it has tested my faith listening to these pharisee's abuse their faith. It does give me a better understanding of how screwed up religious based govts are though.

---

You really are either a walking contradiction or the biggest hypocrite ive seen on these boards. IRRELEVANT is right for once. It dosent matter where the person gets these beliefs but that they are either correct or you agree with them. Whats your beef with religion? By the way I dont care for organised religions of any denomiation.

Quote:

---

You just quoted two different people.

---

I know . ~;) Red usually manages to make refute himself in many of his posts. Its seems he is what he hates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

It says a lot more to me about conservatives that they try to rewrite history on every scoundrel and scumbag who ever had conservative ideas. Trash like the above isn't worth refuting, because it isn't worth reading in the first place.

---

Again with false accusations - where is history being re-written about McCarthy. It seems we have one individual who has alledged that McCarthy was a Christian Extremist - where its not mentioned in any history book that I have ever read about the time period.

And then the three links posted by myself on McCarthy - don't come from conservative baised websites at all - one even is Wikipedia - which has been used by almost all of us at one time or another as a realible source of information. However it seems anything that counters your narrow world view is trash or is a re-write of history. Now that is a funny comment coming from someone who claims to be a moderate or a progressive as you did here:

Quote:

---

Nope, I'm more of an independent or more accurately, a progressive. Some of my views are moderate, some conservative, some liberal.

---

Independent thought would normally entail an open mind able to review all information - and coming to a informed conclusion about the subject. However it seems your mind is more closed then you want to admit.

However instead of answering the question posed by another individual - you chose instead to return to the basic - closed minded narrow viewpoints that show more of an ideological leaning - verus one of independent political thought, without address the supposed re-writes of history.

Yep narrow and closed minded - and some would like to accuse only conservatives of this afflication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I know . ~;) Red usually manages to make refute himself in many of his posts. Its seems he is what he hates.

---

Funny, I haven't seen that at all. I have seen you as being incredibly self contradictory and full of hate. (Why is it the conservatives that are seem to want to bring hate into every discussion? Hmmmm.) Your irrational abhorrence of Clinton actually leads you to side with those who say the U.S. brought on terrorist acts for siding against the Soviets or against genocide. That had to have been the most inane piece of BS I've seen in quite awhile and reminded me very much of the fake native american professor who referred to 9/11 victims as "little Eichmans."

Of course, your world is simple black and white, mine is not. So I guess you find that you take any interpretation of gray as a refutation.

And what is with all these heavily biased sensationalistic articles that you like to quote? It's classic yellow journalism that you continually post as if it was scientific fact. The BS meter pegs on half that stuff and you eat it up. Intellectual discussion is fine, but at least start with something credible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Independent thought would normally entail an open mind able to review all information - and coming to a informed conclusion about the subject. However it seems your mind is more closed then you want to admit.

---

Wrong on both counts. When something pegs the BS meter in the first two lines, it is discarded, just as I do with known faulty data. If I already have a valid assignable cause, then there isn't much reason to do further investigation. Polluting one's mind with yellow journalism is hardly enlightening although it seems to be a past time around here.

Quote:

---

Yep narrow and closed minded - and some would like to accuse only conservatives of this afflication.

---

Seems to fit in your case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Wrong on both counts.

---

So your not an independent thinker - thanks for confirming that.

Quote:

---

When something pegs the BS meter in the first two lines, it is discarded, just as I do with known faulty data. If I already have a valid assignable cause, then there isn't much reason to do further investigation. Polluting one's mind with yellow journalism is hardly enlightening although it seems to be a past time around here.

---

Again show where the history has been re-written. So now Wikepedia is yellow journalism. Interesting

Quote:

---

Seems to fit in your case.

---

Actually it seems to be more of a fit for you, since I am not the one calling Wikipedia Yellow Journalism. But if you admit that your being narrow and closed minded about history that doesn't agree with your politicial views - I will admit that I am narrow and closed minded about several aspects of liberialism.

Really you have to do much better with your attempts at being witty - your really below par with the likes of Tribesman adn Adrian - its really rather laughable.

Quote:

---

It says a lot more to me about conservatives that they try to rewrite history on every scoundrel and scumbag who ever had conservative ideas. Trash like the above isn't worth refuting, because it isn't worth reading in the first place.

---

Preconcieved notions are hard to change.

If you didnt read the article, and are unable to refute any of the facts presented in the article, why are you posting in this thread attacking conservatives?

What possible contribution could you make having not even read the article?

Your bomb throwing would have a lot more impact if you actually contested, or even discussed, the actual article. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So your not an independent thinker - thanks for confirming that.



Again show where the history has been re-written. So now Wikepedia is yellow journalism. Interesting



Actually it seems to be more of a fit for you, since I am not the one calling Wikipedia Yellow Journalism. But if you admit that your being narrow and closed minded about history that doesn't agree with your politicial views - I will admit that I am narrow and closed minded about several aspects of liberialism.

Really you have to do much better with your attempts at being witty - your really below par with the likes of Tribesman adn Adrian - its really rather laughable.

---

You are pretty good at distortion. I'm still referring to the origina post. I had already read through some of the Wiki stuff. Wiki in general seems to depend a lot on who wrote it, it has some accurate info, and some that is not. Didn't change my opinion of McCarthy or McCarthyism.

Most of what you have said is typical conservative trash talk, take your insults and distortions to some other target.

I should know better than to post in threads with yellow journalism headings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Despite my own views on McCarthy, I gotta go with Redleg as far as defending Wikipedia goes. Any article where the nuetrality is disputed, or where the facts might be skewed, there is usually a discussion page and a warning at the top of the article.

---

You fell for his misrepresentation of what I said, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Funny, I haven't seen that at all. I have seen you as being incredibly self contradictory and full of hate. (Why is it the conservatives that are seem to want to bring hate into every discussion? Hmmmm.) Your irrational abhorrence of Clinton actually leads you to side with those who say the U.S. brought on terrorist acts fording a siding against the Soviets or against genocide. That had to have been the most inane piece of BS I've seen in quite awhile and reminded me very much of the fake native american professor who referred to 9/11 victims as "little Eichmans."

---

Full of hate for who? The only group I have ever stated I hate are terrorists. You talk about my irrational abhorrence of Clinton, what of your towards GWB. Again you are a hypocrite of the first magnitude. I admit Im a staunch conservative at leastI admit it. I also never said our siding against the Soviets brought on terrorist acts. I said that I couldnt understand why we fight them in Afghanistan yet support them in Kosovo. You have never addressed the topic of this thread other than to say hogwash conservatives suck. But then you are a moderate.. You are indeed a Master Debator. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm not taking sides in this thread. I stand by my views of McCarthy.

I'm just defending the honour of Wikipedia.

---

And, again, I wasn't referring to wiki. So he's tricked you twice by his misrepresentation of what I said. I was referring to the original text and title. The title alone fits the definition of yellow journalism for its sensational nature.

Just stepping in to remind all: personal attacks are not allowed by forum rules. Critiqueing someone's style of argument = OK. But remember that it's only a half-step away from a personal attack. Tread gently. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

You are pretty good at distortion. I'm still referring to the origina post. I had already read through some of the Wiki stuff. Wiki in general seems to depend a lot on who wrote it, it has some accurate info, and some that is not. Didn't change my opinion of McCarthy or McCarthyism.

---

Why yes I am very good at distortion of people's idiocy - especially when you provide such a tempting target with your ideological viewpoints that contradict themselves so often. But again lets review the comments a little more to see where exactly the distortion is.

You said wrong on both accounts - so you left it open for my interpation. In refusing to answer the question posed - you also set yourself up for the distortion of what you stated - especially given that you responded to the question in the post, without refering to what you wanted to answer. Its called learn to communicate.

Quote:

---

Most of what you have said is typical conservative trash talk, take your insults and distortions to some other target.

---

However why don't you do so first - since you actually started it in this thread review your comments . Calling something he doesn't agree with Yellow Journalism - does not make it so. do you even know who Phil Brennan is? Did the initial article distort the truth to the point of being completely false or made up?

Quote:

---

I should know better than to post in threads with yellow journalism headings.

---

Labeling again I see. What constitutes Yellow Journalism? (And yes I know the answer - just checking to see if you know what it is.)

Its funny the premise of this thread was that the left used the term Mc Carthyism to smear and label conservatives. Whether he was good or bad wasnt my point. He wasnt as bad as some say nor as good as others think.I think they have more than proven my point here. To even think of defending him sends them into a rage and all reason flies out the window. Its another of their sacred cows. Lets not let the facts get in the way. In fact lets just ignore them completely. We can just tell the conservatives how stupid and closed minded they are.

Whether he was good or bad wasnt my point. He wasnt as bad as some say nor as good as others think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Full of hate for who? The only group I have ever stated I hate are terrorists. You talk about my irrational abhorrence of Clinton, what of your towards GWB. Again you are a hypocrite of the first magnitude. I admit Im a staunch conservative at leastI admit it. I also never said our siding against the Soviets brought on terrorist acts. I said that I couldnt understand why we fight them in Afghanistan yet support them in Kosovo. You have never addressed the topic of this thread other than to say hogwash conservatives suck. But then you are a moderate.. You are indeed a Master Debator. ~;)

---

I've been very clear about what I dislike about Dubya and I refer to the acts specifically. That isn't hate. I was actually fairly neutral on him when he first took office, since I had a low opinion of Gore. Dubya has had his shot and I'm not impressed by the results. Some think he's done great, but he's failed on most measures I have. If his policies were actually successful at fulfilling their objectives I wouldn't be so down on him.

You said in the other thread that Clinton had supported AQ etc. by supporting Kosovo. It makes no more sense than the Afghan arguments where again our support was being used against the Soviet occupation. There is no conflict in the two objectives, since both were intended to stop an aggressor. Now you are throwing in the recent Afghan invasion, which is not relevant. We weren't supporting terror in Kosovo, we were stopping genocide. I find that far easier to defend than the Iraq War which while I feel was justified for other reasons, was certainly not justified for the reasons given by the commander in chief.

As for being a "Master Debator." I'm not here to win points for a debate squad. If I wanted to do that I could go play bounce the ball with Pindar in that other thread that is going on forever. I leave a thread when I feel it is stale (and this one was headed there in hurry.) I don't ever expect to get in the last word with our resident right wing, nor do I feel I have some obligation to respond to every single question or comment posed. I do however have a huge problem with the absolute spew coming from the conservative side of the political world at the moment, and I'll call it as I see it. Not that yellow journalism doesn't come from the other side, I dismiss it just as readily. However, the net is just swimming with silly conservative propaganda anymore and usually I turn up more of that than the other extreme when I'm doing searches. It is annoying trying to find something neutral wading through that flotsam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Labeling again I see. What constitutes Yellow Journalism? (And yes I know the answer - just checking to see if you know what it is.)

---

I've been operating under the following from wiki: "The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting."

Look at the title of the thread, fits it to a tee.

Now if I follow the orders being given to me by you, I have to debate your distortions on this endlessly and answer every assertion you make. You just want to fight? Great, go fight with yourself, I'm not interested. I'll sacrifice your debating points. Good-bye.

Quote:

---

You said in the other thread that Clinton had supported AQ etc. by supporting Kosovo. It makes no more sense than the Afghan arguments where again our support was being used against the Soviet occupation.

---

Theres a big difference between helping someone oppose sovit accupation and stepping into a civil war where both sides ar equally guilty and taking the side of those who proven to be your enemy. It may not have occured to you I take it that Clinton came after we started helping in Afganistan . The KLA and AQ are like 2 peas in a pod.

Quote:

---

There is no conflict in the two objectives, since both were intended to stop an aggressor.

---

Thats a matter of opinion. I say the Albanians were the aggressors. I gave you plenty of proof in the other thread. Again both sides were at fault. Its like us suddenly saying Israel is slaughtering Palestinians and bombing Israel.

Quote:

---

We weren't supporting terror in Kosovo, we were stopping genocide

---

Bull . Its going on as we speak but its the Albanians who are doing it and always have been. Yes the Serbs were also guilty. I didnt say we shouldnt stop it . I said we shouldnt have taken sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Theres a big difference between helping someone oppose sovit accupation and stepping into a civil war where both sides ar equally guilty and taking the side of those who proven to be your enemy. It may not have occured to you I take it that Clinton came after we started helping in Afganistan.

---

So? Since Osama was in Afghanistan but a Republican was funding him that makes it different? The fight was still right in both cases. Doesn't mean that everyone behind it was a good person...in EITHER case.

Quote:

---

Thats a matter of opinion. I say the Albanians were the aggressors. I gave you plenty of proof in the other thread. Again both sides were at fault. Its like us suddenly saying Israel is slaughtering Palestinians and bombing Israel.


Bull . Its going on as we speak but its the Albanians who are doing it and always have been. Yes the Serbs were also guilty. I didnt say we shouldnt stop it . I said we shouldnt have taken sides.

---

You can say what you want, but I've already read up on this. I do find it amusing now watching the spin doctors at work on it. The Serbian repression created an insurrection, and it helped drive the other states out as well. Had the Serbs done to you what they were doing to the Kosovars you would have been doing the same as the KLA.

The arguments you are using for Kosovo aren't much better than saying the Jews fighting in the Warsaw ghetto deserved extermination and were terrorists. The fight came from Serb nationalism trying to form a greater Serbia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I've been operating under the following from wiki: "The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting."

---

Now that getting to the gist of the point now is it not?

Quote:

---

Look at the title of the thread, fits it to a tee.

---

The title is only a title of a thread made by an individual who is patron of this forum and from all accounts (by him) is not in the news publishing business - Now lets see if the article meets the requirments of Yellow Journalism - not the title of the thread in which the article appears. However that will require some reading on your part.

Quote:

---

You really are hoist on your own petard over this.

---

Not at all especially since Websters define's Petard as

1 : a case containing an explosive to break down a door or gate or breach a wall
2 : a firework that explodes with a loud repor

Since I can't hoist your ideological viewpoint past your own narrow mind - the use of explosives has not worked.

However you are doing a good job of breaking wind - or in this case typing foul and obnoxious comments

Quote:

---

Since
Now if I follow the orders being given to me by clowns like you, I have to debate your crap on this endlessly and answer every assertion you make. You just want to fight? Great, go fight with yourself, I'm not interested. I'll sacrifice your juvenile debating points. Good-bye.

---

No orders have been given - especially by clowns. However it seems that your ability to not name call other patrons who disagree with your opinion is soley lacking. Maybe a few lessons in manners from your parents might be in order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Maybe a few lessons in manners from your parents might be in order.

---

LOL, you are really making a leap in the wrong direction there...maybe I'll ask my kids for advice instead. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

LOL, you are really making a leap in the wrong direction there...maybe I'll ask my kids for advice instead. ~:cheers:

---

Not at all - I was refering that you need to seek the council of your parents on manners since you obviousily missed or didn't appreciate their lessons the first time.

But your kids might just be able to accomplish the same thing - ~:eek:

Since my son has taught me compassion far more then my parents lessons ever sunk in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Not at all - I was refering that you need to seek the council of your parents on manners since you obviousily missed or didn't appreciate their lessons the first time.

---

You know, I was trying to close this out in a more civil manner, but after watching you in action, I'll just move you to ignore. Haven't tried out that feature before, so we'll see if it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

You know, I was trying to close this out in a more civil manner, but after watching you in action, I'll just move you to ignore. Haven't tried out that feature before, so we'll see if it works.

---

Well it seems you like to dish out insults but can't take them in return. How very enlightened your thinking process is.

Ignore works well - however it does not stop one from having their posts being ridiculed when they deserve it.

Have fun with ignoring people who view things differently - your sure to go far in enlightening your viewpoint.

LOL

Hey if he puts you on ignore I will just quote your posts. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Hey if he puts you on ignore I will just quote your posts. ~D

---

Nah - it will be more fun just to blindly respond and watch others quote them - it can make for a very fun out of context debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

McCarthy was a great, great man. Too bad he wasn't president. America would have won the cold war then.

---

Yes, and he would have abolished the Bill of Rights and the rest of this democracy stuff!

Well, let me see if I get it straight, Mc Carthy made US aware of the Soviet infiltration threat, but also used the communist label to eliminate political enemies. Correct? That was then spread to a public witch-hunt on a lot of public people that didn't exactly was a threat (they were not Soviet spies or heavy Soviet sympathizers). Correct?

AFAIK, the second part is what Mc Carthyism symbolizes.

So the symbol and the actual figure isn't a 100% match. So what? That isn't exactly unusual, when it comes to symbols.

And the thread has ended up here? :dizzy2:

I think McCarthy was a closet communist. He acted so much as the homophobians these days..... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Well, let me see if I get it straight, Mc Carthy made US aware of the Soviet infiltration threat, but also used the communist label to eliminate political enemies. Correct? That was then spread to a public witch-hunt on a lot of public people that didn't exactly was a threat (they were not Soviet spies or heavy Soviet sympathizers). Correct?

AFAIK, the second part is what Mc Carthyism symbolizes.

So the symbol and the actual figure isn't a 100% match. So what? That isn't exactly unusual, when it comes to symbols.

And the thread has ended up here? :dizzy2:

---

What witch-hunt are you talking about?
AFAIK the only political opponent Mccarthy associated with Communism was a guy endorsed by the Communist party. That was in 1946.

The problem is that there is almost a total disconnect between what happened and the myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

What witch-hunt are you talking about?
AFAIK the only political opponent Mccarthy associated with Communism was a guy endorsed by the Communist party. That was in 1946.

---

Quote:

---

McCarthy found a cause. In February 1950, in Wheeling, West Virginia, he made the first of a series of claims that he had the names of "known communists" who were in the employ of the State Department. It was the beginning of a personal witch hunt for communists in the government that lasted for more than five years. McCarthy rarely provided any solid evidence to back up his claims, but in the political climate of the time his accusations and subsequent investigations nonetheless ended many a career and damaged a good number of lives.

After winning re-election in 1952, McCarthy became chairman of the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, a position he used to launch many of his investigations of government officials and agencies. He did not shy away from questioning the integrity of people such as George C. Marshall, or even President Eisenhower. The latter disliked McCarthy intensely but refused to "get in the gutter with him" and never denounced the senator publicly. However, by 1953 a seemingly out-of-control McCarthy was making many enemies. His investigation of the activities of an Army dentist, Maj. Irving Peress, eventually led to his downfall. In 1954, the Army launched its counterattack, charging that McCarthy was seeking preferential treatment for a consultant, David Schine, who in 1953 had been drafted into the Army. Eventually McCarthy's own subcommittee decided to hold hearings on the matter, the Army-McCarthy hearings. The televised hearings fully exposed McCarthy as irresponsible and dishonest. In December 1954, the Senate voted to censure him. McCarthy never repented, but he quickly descended into irrelevance and alcoholism. He died of a liver ailment in Bethesda, Maryland, on May 2, 1957, at age 47.

---

From one of Redleg's sources.

Quote:

---

McCarthy is often incorrectly described as part of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which is well known for the investigation of Alger Hiss which helped bring Richard Nixon into prominence. HUAC was established in May of 1938 as the "Dies Committee" before McCarthy was elected to the Federal office, and, being a House committee, had no connection with McCarthy who served in the Senate. In 1953, playwright Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, an allegory for McCarthyism. This was probably the primary cause for Miller being brought before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1956.

---

On the witch-hunt. Check out the HUAC...
Another one of Redlegs sources. Both is on the first page.

Quote:

---

The problem is that there is almost a total disconnect between what happened and the myth.

---

Not exactly uncommon. I suspect that it's because McCarthy made the red scare public (it seems so for me atleast), that caused the symbolisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Not exactly uncommon. I suspect that it's because McCarthy made the red scare public (it seems so for me atleast), that caused the symbolisation.

---

And in this statement I believe you have identified the gist of how the term came about and why only McCarthy is identified. The sad thing about the whole time period is that McCarthy was not the worst of them.

Not the worst no, but the first so the name has stuck. If the witch hunts were his legacy then why try to whitewash him in the original article? It has very little relevance now and McCarthy seems to be nobody's hero (except to a certain confused individual who isn't aware that the US actually did "win" the Cold War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

It says a lot more to me about conservatives that they try to rewrite history on every scoundrel and scumbag who ever had conservative ideas.

---

Oh, Lefties too rewrite history all the time to suit some temporary interest. But as long as we use our debunking rubbers, we can have safe sex with people of all denominations.

Most rewriting is selective and serves a purpose. Same here.

McCarthy wasn't just any scumbag. He pioneered some of the 'fifth column' smear tactics that are used (or will probably be used soon) by the present administration in order to defend its terrible record on terrorism, its bungled Iraq war and its failing foreign policy.

I guess that's why some columnists and bloggers on the Right start to try and 'rehabilitate' McCarthy by means of doctored profiles like the one above.

It foreshadows some of the tactics we are probably going to see, including maybe official investigations into the integrity and reliability of prominent critics of this administration or 'rumor' campaigns of the kind already practiced by some U.S. Senators on British MP George Galloway.

Personally I think that dog won't run because American democracy won't allow it, but Conservatives are feeding it right now, just in case some convenient rabbit comes along and they feel they can give it a try.

McCarthy was a bum who lied about his war record, lied about all his political opponents during his campaigns, lied about his 'lists' of Communist subversives, and lied about just about everything else in his life, including his (homo)sexuality, his excessive drinking, his tax evasion, the money he took as a Senator from the Pepsi-Cola Company, etcetera, etcetera.

And oh yes, Joe McCarthy did conduct 'investigations' and smear campaigns for years, not as a member of the HUAC (which he wasn't), but as Chairman of the Government Committee on Operations of the Senate. His investigations were a travesty of justice and decency, and most of his them were directed against political opponents who had nothing to do whatsoever with Communism. He was fed a few names by Hoover who later dropped him when he outran his usefulness.

In the end the Senate, President Eisenhower and the US Army had enough of his shrill excesses; the Senate censured him and McCarthy quickly and conveniently drank himself to death, something he should have done many years earlier.

AdrianII,

That view of the rewriting of history, particularly by this admin and its supporters, is one I share. The leftist stuff is fairly transparent and easy to reject, and less accepted. While I'm not fond of it either, I feel less threatened by it since I can't see it going anywhere or being accepted by sane people. There is a rather determined effort going on to rewrite history on the right at the moment and there is certainly an agenda. I've been completely shocked by a large number of links I've seen posted that simply are not true. I find the same when I do searches, the top hits are mostly propaganda. There is a lot of convenient, flawed respinning and reshaping of events. I'm getting an eery feeling like I'm sitting in Germany in the 30's or something. (Side note: creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security has bothered me from day one...something about that name makes me feel far less secure...I can't help but wonder if the original draft was "Fatherland" rather than "Homeland.")

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that there is a major effort to rewrite the history, since the thrust of the conservative movement at the moment is largely regressive in nature. To make that palatable there is a large cast of historical characters that is going to require image makeovers.

For once I am totally speechless. That anyone is willing to defend Joe McCarthy or his committee is astounding. To re-shade the picture to make it sound like anything he did was for anyone but him? Astounding.

As I recall, after all was said and done, all he managed to do was destroy a number of innocent peoples lives.

Amazing, next we'll have them showing us how Adolf was just a misunderstood guy that only wanted to save the world from the Jews (and Communists).

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I'm getting an eery feeling like I'm sitting in Germany in the 30's or something.

---

Whoah, brother Harvest, let's take history one step at a time. ~:cool:

Speaking of Fatherlands, I seemed to remember McCarthy had something with Hitler, but I didn't recall exactly what (in view of his character, it couldn't have been a deep commitment anyway). So I decided to Google and the machine came up with some newer info.

One blog says Harcourt will publish a book this fall by journalist Haynes Johnson, called The Age of Anxiety: McCarthyism to Terrorism, in which he traces 'the straight line that runs from McCarthy to Goldwater to Nixon to Reagan to Bush, which makes recasting McCarthyism in a noble, heroic light necessary to their program of creating a new, fake, right-wing history of the twentieth century'.

Oh well, apart from the hyperbole (it seems he even attributes America's 'culture wars' to McCarthy) there seems to be more than one reason why the Ann Coulters of this world insist on the man's posthumous make-over into a hero.

Oh, and the Hitler reference concerned Mein Kampf, which McCarthy apparently admired for its political tactics. Apparently the Johnson book quotes Greta van Susteren's father, McCarthy's lifelong friend judge Urban Van Susteren, as saying that Joe 'never read books with one exception: Hitler's Mein Kampf, which he regarded as a handbook of political tactics. Joe was fascinated by the strategy, that's all.'

Yeah, that's all. Joe must have been fascinated by what Hitler wrote about the way the masses could be made to swallow lies, big and small, if only you repeated them endlessly and emphatically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

However, by 1953 a seemingly out-of-control McCarthy was making many enemies. His investigation of the activities of an Army dentist, Maj. Irving Peress, eventually led to his downfall. In 1954, the Army launched its counterattack,

---

McCarthy subpoenaed him before the committee on January 30, 1954. Peress took the Fifth Amendment 20 times when asked about his membership in the Communist Party, his attendance at a Communist training school, and his efforts to recruit military personnel into the party. You would need to be a low grade moron to actually believe this guy should have had a security clearance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

On the witch-hunt. Check out the HUAC...
Another one of Redlegs sources. Both is on the first page.

---

Yes, Virginia, there really were Communist spies in the United States during the so-called “McCarthy era.”

The 'Dies Committee' AKA, House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) wasn't Mccarthy, and was founded as you indicate in 1938 to deal with the "un-American activities of Nazis, Fascists, Communists and White Russians." Now you may consider it a witch-hunt but IMO the Nazi's constituted a real threat which events in Germany would seem to vindicate. The activities of the German-American Bund were cause for concern to the American government.

The Fascists in Italy, and elsewhere also needed to be dealt with as well. Mosley's group in Britain for example was a standing joke but then Hitler had been a joke as well, but by 1938 no one was laughing anymore!

The Communist overthrow of Kerensky's democratic government in Russia had been followed by the troubles with Reds in the US just after the First World War. Leon Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution within Marxism wasn't exactly a comforting image. The Comintern (Communist International) at this time believed in the idea of a world-wide revolutionary movement and they were intent on exporting revolution. The argument has often been that the being Communist Party of the 1930s opposed social and political injustice, and had no Stalinist agenda. There was in fact more than enough evidence to prove the reality of Soviet Communist spying to any objective person.

John Reed who represented the US Communist groups was friends with Lydia Stahl who was later arrested in France as a Russian spy. So the idea that Communists had little to do with Soviet espionage is patently false. They have been part and parcel from the beginning.

From the beginning Soviet leaders understood the necessity of underground activities, and foreign governments and labour movements were the key target for infiltration. The evidence for this from many diverse countries is overwhelming. Communists in government engaged in espionage and acted to influence policy in a pro-Soviet direction. Many of the individuals engaged in these activities were Communist Party members, or affiliated with it.

What was the situation that the US was facing in the late 1940's and 50's? Was the "Red Scare" real?

To put the whole thing in context consider what had come before;
Bela Kun and the "Red Terror" in Hungary 1919, Soviet encouragement of British and American worker’s strikes, and the Spanish Civil War of 1936. The Failed Putsch in Hamburg staged by German Communists in 1923, the Spartakist League revolt in Berlin and Ernst Toller's Soviet Republic in Bavaria. Many of these same Communists would later join the rising National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), AKA 'the Nazi's'.

The murderous Purges of Stalin, the Soviet blockade of Berlin, formation of the Cominform, the Sino-Soviet Treaty of 1950, and finally the Communist inspired North Korean invasion of South Korea. Later Chinese Communists would cross the Yalu in support of this invasion.

Lastly, most of Eastern Europe was conquered by the armies of the USSR and incorporated in its ‘sphere of influence’ in the post-war carve-up of central Europe. Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Albania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia had all fallen to the Soviets with no signs they would ever be free nations. Then, in 1947-8, these were transformed from the top down into more or less close replicas of Stalin’s Russia.

Reason for concern? I think so!

The Comintern parties continued to heap praise on Stalin’s brutal, savage dictatorship with always an explanation for every new brutality close at hand. The Comintern had become simply an instrument of the Soviet Union, pure and simple.

The various Communist parties were a conduit and a cover for the activities of many of the Soviet Union. To suggest that the international Communist parties had nothing to do with these events is revisionist history of the worst sort. The Comintern was being used as a tool of Soviet foreign policy.

The White House was aware of accusations against a substantial number of U.S. government employees, including such high officials as the State Department's Alger Hiss, White House aide Lauchlin Currie, OSS executive assistant Duncan Lee, and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White. They were afraid of a public scandal that might discredit the Democratic Party and its policies and help their political Republican rivals. The 'Amerasia' case and the inactivity regarding Harry Dexter White are examples of this. After being told of his activities White was nominated in 1946, as American representative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The Venona Project was the name given to the U. S. government top-secret program launched in 1943 to intercept and decipher communications between Moscow and its intelligence stations in the West. The National Security Agency (NSA) in 1995 began releasing the Venona documents to the public, and fewer than 3,000 partially or fully decrypted Venona messages have been declassified. This is only a tiny fraction of the over 200,000 intercepted messages. No evidence obtained from these intercepts were ever introduced in any court, or released to congress for security reasons. The evidence shows that most of those individuals accused of aiding the Soviets in the 1940s had actually done so. They also showed that Soviet spies had infiltrated every major agency of the U.S. government during the war years, from the State and Treasury departments to the Manhattan Project including the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). The opening of some of the Soviet archives show conclusively that that the American Communist Party was tied in with the Soviet government, and engaged in extensive espionage against the United States. The American Communist movement assisted Soviet intelligence and placed loyalty to the Soviet Union ahead of loyalty to the United States and the Russian archives show exactly that.

Some of those ridiculing Mccarthy for his idea of Soviet spies in the government were actually Soviet agents. The journalist I. F. Stone for example was in the pay of the Soviet Union. Michael Straight, editor of the liberal journal, The New Republic later confessed to working for Soviet intelligence.

KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky revealed, and the Venona transcripts have confirmed that Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt's close wartime White House adviser was also a Soviet agent.

Senator Millard Tydings of Maryland unambiguously cleared all of the individuals cited by McCarthy and branded his charges as "a fraud and a hoax” perpetrated on the American people despite the fact that ex-Communist Louis Budenz had testified at the Tydings Committee hearings that Lattimore was a Communist. Lattimore defended Stalin's show trials and referred to the Soviet Union as a democracy, during the Nazi-Soviet Pact he said there was little to choose between Great Britain and Nazi Germany, in 1949 he said he wanted "to let South Korea fall—but not to let it look as though we pushed it."

John Stewart Service, a career diplomat stationed in China during World War II, was caught transmitting classified documents to the editor of the pro-Communist journal, Amerasia.

McCarthy was entirely correct in wanting to remove such individuals from forging American policy.

To call this a witch-hunt suggests that it was looking for what didn't exist and that is clearly not the case. The "McCarthyite purges" and the witch-hunts he inspired removed from positions of influence a large number of individuals who were NOT loyal to the United States, though it missed as many as it found. Some individuals were not guilty of anything except being foolish enough to believe the Communist Party was something other than a Soviet tool. McCarthy and others like him effectively destroyed the Communist Party as an instrument of espionage. There was a real danger to American democracy, and McCarthy was one of many who helped to preserve it. His infringement of civil liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of association were real, but mild in comparison to the threat.

McCarthy IMO went too far in some cases, but we smear him for using the same tactics that others of the day used, and for the same tactics that are still being used today by Democrats and Republicans. I just do not see a case for him being one of the Great American Villains of the 20th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Yes, Virginia, there really were Communist spies in the United States during the so-called “McCarthy era.”

---

What else is new? And the full list is a lot longer than your summary exposition. But doesn't it strike you as odd, to say the least, that McCarthy never got a single real or so-called Communist convicted?

The issue here is that McCarthy created and abused an atmosphere of hysterical excitement and hatred against political opponents, in particular Democrats. He came up with the issue of Communist infiltration in 1950 when his campaign for re-election threatened to turn sour. By that time Alger Hiss was already discredited; Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had already been arrested and put on trial. It was the liberal New-Dealer Truman who had, in 1947, established a comprehensive loyalty program to ferret out Communist influences in the U.S. government.

That's how someone on McCarthy's staff hit on the idea that this might be a great issue to revive Joe's campaign in the first place. McCarthy immediately said 'That's it. The government is full of Communists. We can hammer away at them.' And he did. McCarthy made 'history' by taking a genuine concern that was already being addressed and blowing it out of all proportion for his own political purposes.

His first so-called 'classified list of Soviet spies' was actually a public list of people who had been turned down by the State Department, some on suspicion of Communist sympathies, others for incompetence, still others merely for obsessive drinking of the kind McCarthy himself liked to indulge in. From that moment on, however, the money came in from all sides. And if Senator McCarthy was interested in anything at all at a personal level, apart from booze, it was money. That''s why he had no friends and everybody dropped him the moment the Senate censured him in 1957. He had no concept of loyalty except to himself.

Might also want to add that McCarthy would also have been on that list...had he needed to go through the same screening.

What happened to the assertions that it was a witch hunt and We are re writting history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

What else is new? And the full list is a lot longer than your summary exposition. But doesn't it strike you as odd, to say the least, that McCarthy never got a single real or so-called Communist convicted?

---

Not really!
So we have gone from listed Communists, to exposed Communists, to convicted Communists. Well, news flash! He wasn't a federal prosecutor, so how exactly was he supposed to get someone convicted as a Senator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

The issue here is that McCarthy created and abused an atmosphere of hysterical excitement and hatred against political opponents, in particular Democrats.

---

Yes, that is indeed the issue here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

He came up with the issue of Communist infiltration in 1950 when his campaign for re-election threatened to turn sour.

---

1946 actually!
He made communism an issue in his campaign against Howard McMurray in 1946, charging that McMurray had received the endorsement of the Daily Worker, the Communist Party newspaper. In April 1947, McCarthy told the Madison Capital Times that his top priority was "to stop the spread of communism." The Communist Party of Wisconsin had originally circulated petitions to place its own candidate on the ballot as an independent in the general election. When McCarthy scored his surprising victory over La Follette, the communists did not file the petitions for their candidate, but rallied instead behind McMurray.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

By that time Alger Hiss was already discredited;

---

Actually even after it was discovered some number of liberals continued to defend him, but you are correct Alger Hiss wasn't uncovered by McCarthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had already been arrested and put on trial. It was the liberal New-Dealer Truman who had, in 1947, established a comprehensive loyalty program to ferret out Communist influences in the U.S. government.

That's how someone on McCarthy's staff hit on the idea that this might be a great issue to revive Joe's campaign in the first place. McCarthy immediately said 'That's it. The government is full of Communists. We can hammer away at them.' And he did. McCarthy made 'history' by taking a genuine concern that was already being addressed and blowing it out of all proportion for his own political purposes.

---

Not really that comprehensive and mostly under pressure from congress and guys like McCarthy.

In December 1945, the FBI sent President Truman a report showing that his Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White, was a Soviet spy. Truman ignored the warning and, early in 1946, promoted White to executive director of the U.S. Mission to the International Monetary Fund. The FBI sent Truman a second report, but again he did nothing. White resigned from the government in 1947, and his communist ties were exposed by Elizabeth Bentley when she appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1948.

In June 1947, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee addressed a secret memorandum to Marshall, calling to his attention

"a condition that developed and still flourishes in the State Department under the administration of Dean Acheson. It is evident that there is a deliberate, calculated program being carried out not only to protect communist personnel in high places but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity. On file in the department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States which involves a large number of State Department employees, some in high official positions. "

The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." On June 24, 1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from June 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.

No, I think the "comprehensive loyalty program to ferret out Communist influences" was just a little dysfunctional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

His first so-called 'classified list of Soviet spies' was actually a public list of people who had been turned down by the State Department, some on suspicion of Communist sympathies, others for incompetence, still others merely for obsessive drinking of the kind McCarthy himself liked to indulge in. From that moment on, however, the money came in from all sides.

---

He never claimed otherwise. He only wanted something done about it. Nor was he the only one. A young congressman from Massachusetts deplored "the disasters befalling China and the United States," and declared that "it is of the utmost importance that we search out and spotlight those who must bear the responsibility for our present predicament." The congressman placed a major part of the blame on "a sick Roosevelt," General George Marshall, and "our diplomats and their advisers, the Lattimores and the Fairbanks," and he concluded: "This is the tragic story of China whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away." The congressman's name was John F. Kennedy.

And his brother Robert; "it just didn't make sense to anybody in this country that our major allies, whom we're aiding financially, should trade with the communists who are killing GIs".

Four times during McCarthy's February 20th speech, Senator Scott Lucas demanded that McCarthy make the 81 names public, but McCarthy refused to do so, responding that "if I were to give all the names involved, it might leave a wrong impression. If we should label one man a communist when he is not a communist, I think it would be too bad." What McCarthy did was to identify the individuals only by case numbers, not by their names. Oh, yes! He's clearly out of control!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

That''s why he had no friends and everybody dropped him the moment the Senate censured him in 1957. He had no concept of loyalty except to himself.

---

He had some. One of his earliest supporters was Joseph Kennedy, the father of JFK. McCarthy attended the wedding of Joe's daughter Eunice Kennedy, and was Joe's guest at numerous other affairs, where Kennedy introduced him as his "valued friend."

In 1954, at the 15th reunion of his Harvard class, a McCarthy hater toasted Harvard College for never having produced an Alger Hiss or a Joe McCarthy.

John F. Kennedy stood up and walked out, roaring, "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!" - the words of later president JFK judging the worth of Joe McCarthy. John F. Kennedy was also the only democrat not to vote to condemn McCarthy, back problems I hear. Of course a lot of democrats at the time thought that was kind of convenient.

So he had some friends!

The average American did not fear McCarthy; in fact, the Gallup Poll reported in 1954 that the senator was fourth on its list of most admired men. And he had some admirers too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

And if Senator McCarthy was interested in anything at all at a personal level, apart from booze, it was money.

---

I wonder why such an evil and wretched man was asked to be the godfather for Robert Kennedy's daughter Kathleen? And why in 1953 was Robert Kennedy working with Senator McCarthy? Maybe he was spying on him trying to save us all from his evil! No, it seems he said; "Joe McCarthy's methods may be a little rough," he told reporters, "but, after all, his goal is to expose Communists in government, and that's a worthy goal. So why are you reporters so critical of his methods?" GOOD QUESTION!

Some 653 persons were called by the McCarthy Committee during 1953-54. These individuals first appeared in executive session and were told of the evidence against them. If they were able to offer satisfactory explanations - and most of them were - they were dismissed and nobody ever knew they had been summoned. Those who appeared in public sessions had taken Fifth Amendment refusing to answer questions, or there was good reason to presume their guilt. Only 83 refused to answer questions about communist or espionage activities on constitutional grounds and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, but their names were not made public.

Charles E. Ford, an attorney for Edward Rothschild in the Government Printing Office hearings, was so impressed with McCarthy's fairness toward his client that he declared: "I think the committee session at this day and in this place is most admirable and most American." Peter Gragis, who appeared before the McCarthy Committee on March 10, 1954, said that he had come to the hearing terrified because the press "had pointed out that you were very abusive, that you were crucifying people.... My experience has been quite the contrary. I have, I think, been very understandingly treated. I have been, I think, highly respected despite the fact that for some 20 years I had been more or less an active communist."

The man was clearly a monster!
He drank too much.
He was mean.
He embarrassed democrats AND the army!
I mean what kind of sicko does that!

Quote:

---

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that there is a major effort to rewrite the history, since the thrust of the conservative movement at the moment is largely regressive in nature. To make that palatable there is a large cast of historical characters that is going to require image makeovers.

---

What history is being re-written? You see one article that was favorable about McCarthy and now a right wing conspiracy is trying to change history? Can you give any examples of this?

Frankly, most people in America know very little about McCarthy and dont care. Articles such as this only resonate in the small minority of people who actually pay attention to both history and politics..

Really Im interested to hear your explanation on this one..

I'm about as anti-communist as you can get, so I really admire what McCarty did by exposing all those communists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

There have been alot of Republicans lately trying to Justify Nixon, if you need examples of history being re-written.

---

In addition I'll add some things I've seen related to States Rights and the ACW, as well as Supply Side Economics, Kosovo, trust busting, and other historical events. Most of it is very selective use of the data/facts combined with very creative interpretations.

I think they need to soften Nixon's image, because the current administration is staring some abuse of power issues square in the face at the moment. The admin has developed some rather considerable credibility problems. They haven't snowballed yet to the point that their power base has lost faith, but the potential is there.

On the HUAC in hollywood

HUAC and Censorship Changes

Same author defending the first round in Hollywood

Wiki

Quote:

---

Certainly very little propaganda made it into their films. Only one film, Mission to Moscow (1943), was ever found to have any traces of such influence, and it was produced as much out of enthusiasm for the Soviet Union's role as an ally in World War II as out of Communist influence.

---

The point here was? Especially after the "Hollywood Ten" 1947.

Quote:

---

From 1951 to 1954, HUAC, now directed by John S. Wood, again focused on Hollywood, compiling a list of 324 present and former Hollywood workers who supposedly were or had been members of the Communist Party. Whether or not these people admitted membership, they ended up on an unofficial blacklist.

---

The issue isn't the detection of Soviet spies, but the method's used.

That they didn't investigate the KKK as

Quote:

---

The HUCA originally investigated both left-wing and right wing political groups. Some called for the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan to be interrogated by the HUAC. Martin Dies however was a supporter of the Klan and had spoken at several of its rallies. Other members of the HUAC such as John Rankin and John S. Wood were also Klan sympathizers. Wood defended the Klan by arguing that: "The threats and intimidations of the Klan are an old American custom, like illegal whisky-making."

Eventually Ernest Adamson, the HUAC's chief counsel, announced that: "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe." John Rankin added: After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

---

Link

doesn't exactly shine well on this organisation either, as it's a failure to do thier job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

In addition I'll add some things I've seen related to States Rights and the ACW, as well as Supply Side Economics, Kosovo, trust busting, and other historical events. Most of it is very selective use of the data/facts combined with very creative interpretations.

I think they need to soften Nixon's image, because the current administration is staring some abuse of power issues square in the face at the moment. The admin has developed some rather considerable credibility problems. They haven't snowballed yet to the point that their power base has lost faith, but the potential is there.

---

Just a question.
As someone who thinks Bush is a moron, thinks Karl Rove should go to prison, and dislikes the Neocon movement, where do I fit into the conspiracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Quote:
Certainly very little propaganda made it into their films. Only one film, Mission to Moscow (1943), was ever found to have any traces of such influence, and it was produced as much out of enthusiasm for the Soviet Union's role as an ally in World War II as out of Communist influence.

The point here was? Especially after the "Hollywood Ten" 1947.

---

That isn't what those making the films have to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The issue isn't the detection of Soviet spies, but the method's used.

That they didn't investigate the KKK as

doesn't exactly shine well on this organisation either, as it's a failure to do thier job.

---

IMO the KKK should have been dealt with, but an expansion of HUAC isn't what most would argue for.

Since as has been pointed out the Communists of the 1950's are not like the Communists of today I fail to see the point here. Do nothing and leave the film industry in the influence of those who are hostile to democracy? Communism was never just another political party; it was the only one directed from a foreign country, and that nation was hostile to the United States and the values of democracy.

From your link;
"These ten witnesses knew they had three options. They could claim they were not and never had been members of the Communist Party (this would have meant perjuring themselves)"

"A number of Hollywood directors, screenwriters, and actors had joined the Communist Party or contributed funds to its activities during the Depression of the 1930s. It was to these especially strident participants that HUAC was most mindful."

One former Communist screenwriter noted that there were a number of "awful writers" who managed to get jobs only because they belonged to the party.

Alvah Bessie
seved with the International Brigades in spain, backing the communist side.

Dmytryk testified how people such as John Howard Lawson, Adrian Scott and Albert Maltz had put him under pressure to make sure his films expressed the views of the Communist Party. "John Howard Lawson settled all questions. If there was a switch in the Party line, he explained it. If there were any decisions to be made, they went to John Howard Lawson. If there was any conflict within the Communist Party, he was the one who settled it." -" Albert Maltz had been concerned about the lack of freedom of thought in the Communist Party for some time...So he wrote the article which he later had to repudiate or get out of the Party, and he chose to repudiate it."

Budd Schulberg; " These people (those he named), if they had it in them, could have written books and plays. There was not a blacklist in publishing. There was not a blacklist in the theatre. They could have written about the forces that drove them into the Communist Party. They were practically nothing written. Nor have I seen these people interested in social problems in the decades since. They're interested in their own problems and in the protection of the Party."

Walter Bernstein, screenwriter for The Front—the first Hollywood movie about the blacklist, well he shows up in the Venona decrypts of Soviet cables as a willing collaborator with the KGB.

Boris Morros, producer of such movies as Flying Deuces, with Laurel and Hardy, and Second Chorus, with Paulette Goddard and Fred Astaire, also worked for Soviet intelligence.

Cedric Belfrage, a Hollywood journalist and friend of Hollywood Ten Lester Cole also shows up in the Venona decrypts.

These are the few who actually show up as paid agents in the few Venona documents (3,000) that have been released. There are ten of thousands (200,000) more waiting with more little surprises!

"Controversy surrounded the honoring of director Elia Kazan at this year's Academy Awards. Kazan had done the unthinkable. He'd actually named names."

His wife, Molly, has written about what many in Hollywood still characterize as witch-hunts: "Those witches did not exist. Communists do. Here, and everywhere in the world. It's a false parallel. The phrase would indicate that there are no Communists in the government, none in the trade unions, none in the press, none in the arts, none sending money from Hollywood to Twelfth Street. No one who was in the Party and left uses that phrase. They know better."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

I wonder why such an evil and wretched man was asked to be the godfather for Robert Kennedy's daughter Kathleen? And why in 1953 was Robert Kennedy working with Senator McCarthy?

---

Because Robert was a fanatic in his youth and only later, gradually, realised some of his major mistakes, as he acknowledged in 1953 when he resigned from McCarthy's Committee because of 'the way that the Committee was being run'. And in those days both Robert and John were heavily dependent on their crook father Joe Kennedy who shared, shall we say, certain interests with Joe McCarthy, ranging from illegal money making schemes to flings with fascism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Charles E. Ford, an attorney for Edward Rothschild in the Government Printing Office hearings, was so impressed with McCarthy's fairness (..)

---

A lot of people grovelled to McCarthy in those days, and the words of the lawyer of someone who made a narrow escape have little to no weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Because Robert was a fanatic in his youth and only later, gradually, realised some of his major mistakes, as he acknowledged in 1953 when he resigned from McCarthy's Committee because of 'the way that the Committee was being run'. And in those days both Robert and John were heavily dependent on their crook father Joe Kennedy who shared, shall we say, certain interests with Joe McCarthy, ranging from illegal money making schemes to flings with fascism.

A lot of people grovelled to McCarthy in those days, and the words of the lawyer of someone who made a narrow escape have little to no weight.

---

I see, so anyone who had anything good to say about McCarthy must be a bad person or misguided? Or a groveller. Or a crawler, lackey, sycophant, toady, etc.

Which would make JFK a crook or a fool, or was he a groveller too? What was it he said..."a great American patriot"

He's a bad man!
Anyone who say's anything good about him is also bad (or misguided if we like them!)
All evidence, regardless of accuracy will be accepted to prove he is bad!
No evidence, regardless of accuracy will be accepted to prove he is not a villain!
Lastly, Liberals are open minded and always willing to give everyone a fair shake!

Seriously, does the evidence really show that he was the 1950's version of Darth Vader? I mean...is this it?

Well, I think this means that, officially now, Wisconsin has only produced wonderful Senators ~:cheers: