If I judge it correctly, Good Night, and Good Luck intends to serve as a parable for our times and not a history lesson. Its makers want us to find contemporary "resonance" in the film and conclude that, compared to the giants of 1954, modern journalists have been cowed by those in political power. What a facile, Hollywood cliché. Journalism has improved vastly since 1954, certainly eclipsing the likes of Edward R. Murrow's overrated TV output, and today's reporters are more independent and willing to confront presidential administrations and powerful political figures than Murrow and his boys ever were.

Haven't seen the movie and probably won't until it's on rental DVD.

But to help out in this somewhat loaded debate, here's a link for the Venona Project:

Wikipedia on Venona

McCarthy was out to get anyone who ever was in the Communist party. That's quite a few people from the Great Depression era. It strikes me as a turkey shoot.

Of course, maybe most of these people were spies. Anybody have links that support this notion?

The thing about McCarthy is that he was never wrong about anyone being a communist, but everyone portrayed him as crazy and feeble. The Venona project (along with later Soviet admissions and declassified documents) proved that the United States government was flush with communists.
At the bottom of this post shows the number of people that were "outed" as communists or part of a greater soviet conspiracy....

http://newsbusters.org/node/2510

I find it funny that we see specials on everything from JFK to household cleaners, but the Venona project and the level of soviet infiltration is hardly known by the American people. I pray that this film doesn't add to the McCarthy histeria...

This argument depends upon characterizing McCarthy's rhetoric and his critics' in two very specific ways. First, one has to transmogrify McCarthy's assertions and policies into something strikingly different from what they were. Second, one has to reduce all criticism of McCarthy to an assertion made by a fringe part of a fringe part of what is mis-named "the left." That is, this argument runs, McCarthy was right because there really were communists. What this ignores is that McCarthy asserted much, much more than just that there were communists, that he was wrong in how he identified communists, what he thought should be done about them, and his basic strategies for dealing with Soviet spies. It also ignores that, except for Stalinist stooges, his critics granted that there were communists. What they did not grant was that he was correctly identifying them, that his methods for fighting communism were helpful, nor that the situation merited abrogating basic constitutional principles.

And that is the point that defenders of McCarthy are trying to slide over. It is not simply that McCarthy said there were communist spies--which there were, but whom he did not name--but that he wanted to conflate two completely different categories of people: people who were engaged in something illegal (treason) and people who were engaged in something constitutionally protected (dissent).
source

There are several things about which Senator McCarthy was right- although he was by no means the first or only person to note them. There was a very significant issue of national security presented by communist spying and subversion. No government can turn a blind eye to spying as extensive as that directed against the United States by the Soviet Union. Secondly, the American Communist Party was serving as an agent of a foreign power. Venona makes crystal clear that the leadership of the CPUSA was not only aware of Soviet intelligence networks in the government, but also actively assisted the KGB in recruiting American communists to spy. The CPUSA even had several liaisons who worked with KGB spymasters. The KGB code word for members of the CPUSA was “Fellow Countrymen.” Nearly every American who worked for the KGB or GRU was a member of the CPUSA. That does not mean, of course, that all communists were Soviet spies, but most assuredly, most spies were communists.
...
But if McCarthy was right about some of the large issues, he was wildly wrong on virtually all of the details. There is no indication that he had even a hint of the Venona decryptions, so he did not base his accusations on the information in them. Indeed, virtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendoes disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies- distinctions that were important to make. The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult. Like Gresham’s Law, McCarthy’s allegations marginalized the accurate claims. Because his facts were so often wrong, real spies were able to hide behind the cover of being one of his victims and even persuade well-meaning but naïve people that the whole anti-communist cause was based on inaccuracies and hysteria.
...
If espionage on behalf of Joseph Stalin’s Russia is simply an untraditional form of patriotism, then words like loyalty and patriotism have lost any meaning. It is only a short step to proclaiming that Joseph McCarthy’s disregard for due process and reckless smearing of innocent people is a non-traditional way of affirming basic American values. Which is exactly the argument that Ann Coulter makes in her unfortunate recent book, Treason, which seeks to rehabilitate Senator McCarthy as a great truth-teller. Her only excuse is that she is not a historian but a pundit and therefore can claim indifference to factual evidence.
source

Now before we go any further, let's get one thing straight. Based on what we've now learned from previously-secret Soviet intelligence archives, and from FBI decryptions of Soviet intelligence cables during that era, one can indeed retrospectively praise the McCarthy message -- that the liberal Democratic establishment of the 1930's and 1940's allowed itself to be naively infiltrated by communist (pro-Soviet) sympathizers, many of whom were spying for the tyrannical and murderous regime of Joseph Stalin, or who were accepting financial support from the same repressive dictatorship. But, based on the historical record, surely it's still appropriate to want to metaphorically shoot the messenger bearing that message, Senator Joe McCarthy -- because he was nothing but a sociopathic political thug who wished nothing more than to gain political advantage and power by terrorizing the innocent as well as the guilty by means of his headline-making, anti-communist crusade.

Talk about making it up as you go along. Even though his basic message actually merited attention, Tailgunner Joe sullied it with so many false claims and exaggerations that today he would qualify for a job as a New York Times correspondent. Certainly, by the time of his downfall, Senator Joseph McCarthy had become the Jayson Blair of American anti-communism, demeaning his message with a steady litany of exaggerated and fictitious innuendo.
source - from another conservative

"Murrow wasn't an anti-anti-communist. He was very much against communism," Clooney noted. "What he was more against was the idea or the method which eventually the Republican Party was also against, which was to take away civil liberties to find these people.

"Yes, there were communists infiltrating some areas of government. Not many, a couple of guys. But the bigger issue was that you have to be allowed to face your accuser. That's what Murrow's argument was, the constitutional issue."
source

B: McCarthy was wrong about most of the people he accused, and he subverted democratic institutions in the witch-hunts (which is the real problem with him).

( A ) does not mean that McCarthy is vindicated. ( B ) does not mean that there were no Communist spies. Not hard to understand.

1951 June 14 report by McCarthy of 60,000 words attacked George Marshall as an "instrument of a Soviet conspiracy"

It is when we return to an examination of General Marshall's record since the spring of 1942 that we approach an explanation of the carefully planned retreat from victory, Let us again review the Marshall record, as I have disclosed it from all the sources available and all of them friendly. This grim and solitary man it was who, early in World War II, determined to put his impress upon our global strategy, political and military.

But in early 1950 his sweeping accusations and reckless tactics, soon called "McCarthyism," achieved worldwide attention, and the attack on “Commiecrats” became the major theme in American politics. It helped the G.O.P. win in 1952. So powerful was the vicious slander, however, that even the Eisenhower victory could not immediately stop it. (Yes, there were Reds in high places, but McCarthy and his allies were almost entirely unaware of the genuine articles.)

Senator McCarthy explained to witnesses that they could
take the Fifth Amendment only if they were concerned that
telling the truth would incriminate them, a reasoning that
redefined the right against self-incrimination as incriminating
in itself. Calling them ``Fifth-Amendment Communists,'' he
insisted that ``an innocent man does not need the Fifth
Amendment.''

The army hired Boston lawyer Joseph Welch to make its case. At a session on June 9, 1954, McCarthy charged that one of Welch's attorneys had ties to a Communist organization. As an amazed television audience looked on, Welch responded with the immortal lines that ultimately ended McCarthy's career: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, but Welch angrily interrupted, "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"

October: Senator Joe McCarthy endorses Richard Nixon's candidacy for the Senate, and announces a showdown "between the American people and the administration Commiecrat party of betrayal." Nixon earns the nickname of "Tricky Dick" for his successful sliming of his Democratic opponent and anti-Communist Helen Gahagan Douglas as a "fellow traveler" whom he nicknames "the Pink Lady." Nixon rides his slanderous campaign strategy to success, and will represent California in the US Senate. (Joe Conason)

It should be pointed out that not all of McCarthy’s false or unsubstantiated accusations or insinuations of Communism were directed at individuals. He also targeted entire institutions. For example, he repeatedly referred to the Democratic Party as the “Commiecrat” party. In a speech in his home state of Wisconsin, McCarthy attacked the most influential paper in the state, the Milwaukee Journal, which gave him unfavorable coverage, by telling constituents: “Keep in mind that when you send your checks over to the Journal, you are contributing to bringing the Communist Party line in the homes of Wisconsin.” And when Time magazine published an uncomplimentary cover story about him, McCarthy wrote to numerous corporations encouraging them to stop doing business with a “pro-Communist” magazine.

What was McCarthy specifically right about?
He attacked the Democratic Party for being communist.  Then focused on the army and former Secretary of State Marshall.

A brief list of the Soviet Spies who had infilitrated various positions in government.

Your list was anything but brief. What is the source of it?

The list came from a long-time culmination of research... of which all is correct but would take entirely long to prove.

Did you find mistakes??

As regards whether or not McCarthy was right, I think I've made it clear that yes, there were Communists in the State Department. No, there were never as many Communists as McCarthy initially claimed and indeed some of the worst Communists sympathizers such as Ted Hall who passed on secrets of the atomic bomb to the Soviets were never caught.

McCarthy may have rattled the cage, but he was more of an opportunist trying to inject life into a lackluster poltical career, than a crusader attempting to protect democracy by destroying it.

McCarthy was wrong. Period. 

Your list was anything but brief. What is the source of it?

I'm at work and have little time to explain in detail... but who was McCarthy right about??? Do you really want the list?? (of which George Marshall may not have been on the payroll of the Communists, but he surely was a sympathizer...)

A brief list of the Soviet Spies who had infilitrated various positions in government. You know, just a couple of guys. No big deal: Jon Abt - Department of Justice, assistant to US Attorney General; Solomon Adler - Treasury Dept; Thomas Babin - OSS; Joel Barr - Army Signal Corps; Marion Berdecio - Naval Intel. and State Department; Joseph Bernstein - Board of Economic Warfare; Thomas Black - Department of Commerce; Norman Bursler - Justice Department; Frank Coe - Treasury; Judith Coplon - Justice Department; Byron Darling - Development and Research; Samuel Dickstein - Democratic Congressman; Laurence Duggan - State Department; Demetrius Dvoichenko-Markov - US Army; Jack Fahy - Economic Warfare/Interior Dept.; Linn Farish - OSS; Edward Fitzgerald - War Production Board; Jane Foster - OSS/Economic Warfare; Harold Glasser - Treasury; Bela Gold - Dept of Agriculture and senate subcomittee on War mobilization; Sonia Gold - Treasury; Maurice Halperin - OSS and State Department; Alger Hiss - State Department; Donald Hiss - State Department; Julius Joseph - Federal Security Agency; Helen Keenan - OSS; Kristina Krotkova - Office of War Information; James Miller - Post Office, Office of Censorship; Robert Minor - OSS; William Pearl - NACA at Langley Army Base; Julius Rosenberg - Army Signal Corps; John Scott - OSS; Helen Tenney - OSS; Lud Ullman - UN Delegate; George Vuchinich - US Army/OSS; Enoc Wicher - Division of War Research; Flora Wovschin - Office of War Information/State Department; Ilya Wolston - Army Military Intelligence; Daniel Zarat - US Army Explosives division

Although McCarthy's activities did not result in any convictions or criminal prosecutions for espionage, the now declassified Venona Cables from the former Soviet Union indicate that some of the individuals he pursued had hidden communist associations.

long-time culmination of research... of which all is correct but would take entirely long to prove.

This point has been addressed before.  But I would be right if I started screaming there are spies among us today. We could wait for 50 years and then print all of the names of people caught spying on the United States in 2005.

But that does not justify spouting out specific names, vague lists and blasting entire organizations (unjustly) as communist or communist sympathizing.

Plagiarism is not a

It is a quick cut and paste job pushed forward as proof.

Perhaps you'd like to revise the list. Or next time, perhaps you ought to not plaigerize, as your entire paragraph, including the opening "A brief list of the Soviet Spies who had infilitrated various positions in government. You know, just a couple of guys. No big deal:" was lifted straight from newsbusters blog 

I utilized the list in order to prove a point... of which I was correct.

Every single one of the people on the list was a known communist, and in order to prove them all as communists it would take a list of google-ized websites a mile long...

The message and the point is always correct none the less. It's just easier to demonize me than to admit that Mr McCarthy's suspicions about the communist infestation was true, now isn't it?

The thing about McCarthy is that he was never wrong about anyone being a communist, but everyone portrayed him as crazy and feeble. 

Moderators taking a thread off topic hmmmmm.. Are you guys done beating up on aevans?


back on topic

I think the point Aevans was making that in debate question 2 it was asked how Clooney(removes the C ) asserts there were "a couple of guys".  Do you agree with Clooney that there were only a couple of guys that were spies in the US in the 1950's?

In line with this documentary-style approach, the film-makers chose to use actual footage of Senator McCarthy rather than cast an actor in the role.

To avoid accusations that he was demonising the senator, "the trick was to show the actual McCarthy, doing what he did," says Clooney.

"Murrow wasn't an anti-anti-communist. He was very much against communism," Clooney noted. "What he was more against was the idea or the method which eventually the Republican Party was also against, which was to take away civil liberties to find these people. "Yes, there were communists infiltrating some areas of government. Not many, a couple of guys. But the bigger issue was that you have to be allowed to face your accuser. That's what Murrow's argument was, the constitutional issue."

For his stand, Murrow was accused of being a communist sympathizer. But after a meeting with the CBS boss William Paley (Frank Langella), Murrow decides to fight fire with fire and report on what he believes are all the inadequacies and lies perpetrated by the McCarthy hearings.

Now, ordinarily -- ordinarily I would not take time out from the important work at hand to answer Murrow. However, in this case, I feel justified in doing so because Murrow is a symbol -- the leader and the cleverest of the jackal pack which is always found at the throat of anyone who dares to expose individual Communists and traitors. I am compelled by the facts to say to you that Mr. Edward R. Murrow, as far back as twenty years ago, was engaged in propaganda for Communist causes. For example, the Institute of International Education, of which he was the acting director, was chosen to act as a representative by a Soviet agency to do a job which would normally be done by the Russian secret police. Mr. Murrow sponsored a Communist school in Moscow. In the selection of American students and teachers who were to attend, Mr. Murrow's organization acted for the Russian espionage and propaganda organization known as Voks (V-O-K-S) and many of those selected were later exposed as Communists. Murrow's organization selected such notorious Communists as Isadore Gegun, David Zablodowsky. Incidentally, Zablodowsky was forced out of the United Nations, when my chief counsel presented his case to the grand jury and gave a picture of his Communist activities.

On March nine of this year, Mr. Murrow (a trained reporter, who had traveled all over the world, who was the educational director of CBS) followed implicitly the Communist line, as laid down in the last six months, laid down not only by the Communist Daily Worker, but by the Communist magazine  Political Affairs and by the National Conference of the Communist Party of the United States of America.

Moderators taking a thread off topic hmmmmm.. Are you guys done beating up on aevans?


back on topic

I think the point Aevans was making that in debate question 2 it was asked how Clooney(removes the C ) asserts there were "a couple of guys".  Do you agree with Clooney that there were only a couple of guys that were spies in the US in the 1950's?

To put the point back on topic, I checked every name on the list, which happened to include numerous links; of which couldn't possibly have all been included. The list did come from another link, but in order to support my claim, I feel like I couldn't possibly simply post it as fact... but funny- it is...

The point is that all of these people were communists, and whether they ended up on a list or not, McCarthy's fears of the United States government being flush with communists wasn't unwarranted.

The bottom line is that to demonize a man who "outed" a larger problem in American history is playing the blame game. Consider what liberal media sources did to Linda Tripp or Monica Lewinsky... poor McCarthy was on a historical scale. Now Mr. Clooney is going to hit the silver screen with a largely partial truth...

and liberals on America's Debate make an attempt at debunking the truth that all of these people listed were indeed communists, during the period during which Mr McCarthy was attacking the government and military establishment for not seeking out these types of people in the ranks...

Consider what liberal media sources did to Linda Tripp or Monica Lewinsky... poor McCarthy was on a historical scale. Now Mr. Clooney is going to hit the silver screen with a largely partial truth...

and liberals on America's Debate make an attempt at debunking the truth that all of these people listed were indeed communists, during the period during which Mr McCarthy was attacking the government and military establishment for not seeking out these types of people in the ranks...

The message and the point is always correct none the less. It's just easier to demonize me than to admit that Mr McCarthy's suspicions about the communist infestation was true, now isn't it?

Alger Hiss was convicted before McCarthy started his crusade.

Just a point of comparison, unlike us, France and Italy had large communist parties during extended periods in post World War ll history, but somehow they avoided a red scare.

Now, this isn't to say whether or not McCarthy accurately identfied Communists.  I just wanted to clear the air by saying that it's not necessary to prove that the people he targeted were spies, in order to determine whether or not his investigations were worthwhile.

The accusation was that "they conspired . . . to organize as the Communist Party and willfully to advocate and teach the principles of Marxism-Leninism," which the government alleged to mean "overthrowing and destroying the government of the United States by force and violence" at some unspecified future time.

One thing I just wanted to add to this thread.  Some of the replies seem to be suggesting that being a Communist wasn't all that bad, provided you weren't a Communist "spy".  Of course that's true when it comes to ordinary people living their lives.  But the people under investigation by McCarthy's committee were people working in the policymaking institutions of our government.  As far as I'm concerned, it was perfectly valid to root Communists out of those positions, regardless of whether or not they're guilty of espionage.  That's because when you work in a position like that, the burden is on you to show that you're fit to work there, not on anyone else to show that you're not, if there's something so suggest that your loyalty to this country might be suspect.  Communists don't belong in those positions any more than Nazis do.  And in the 1950s, our country wasn't under any threat from Nazis.

Now, this isn't to say whether or not McCarthy accurately identfied Communists.  I just wanted to clear the air by saying that it's not necessary to prove that the people he targeted were spies, in order to determine whether or not his investigations were worthwhile.

I didn't conclude that his investigations were worthwhile, AuthorMusician.  I said that it wasn't necessary for him to bag a spy in order for his investigations to have been worthwhile.  And particularly, getting convictions was completely irrelevant, because he wasn't a prosecutor.  When Congress conducts investigations, it does so in order to expose a problem, not convict someone of a crime.  And the presence of Communists in the organs of government responsible for drawing up and implementing foreign policy (regardless of whether or not they were actually committing espionage) was definitely a problem that needed to be addressed.

Oh, I get it. Just the fact that someone had at one time or another associated with communists is enough evidence that something bad might be happening. Or it might happen eventually. Whatever, blackball 'em!

That's pretty darn thin ice. But it's also familiar thin ice. The thinking ties directly in with the war on terror. You just don't know who is doing what, so lock 'em all down without due process. Maybe torture some bogus information from 'em. Hey, taken in perspective, McCarthy wasn't all that bad!

Come to think of it, he was a cartoonish kind of bufoon, compared to where his initiative has brought this country. We do all owe it to him, don't we.

But the people under investigation by McCarthy's committee were people working in the policymaking institutions of our government. As far as I'm concerned, it was perfectly valid to root Communists out of those positions, regardless of whether or not they're guilty of espionage.

I said that it wasn't necessary for him to bag a spy in order for his investigations to have been worthwhile. And particularly, getting convictions was completely irrelevant, because he wasn't a prosecutor.

I said, "the presence of Communists in the organs of government responsible for drawing up and implementing foreign policy (regardless of whether or not they were actually committing espionage) was definitely a problem that needed to be addressed."

No, you don't get it. Where did you get this "at one time or another associated with" business? I said, "the presence of Communists in the organs of government responsible for drawing up and implementing foreign policy (regardless of whether or not they were actually committing espionage) was definitely a problem that needed to be addressed." Nothing in there about people who might have once associated with Communists.

And this, by the way, represents the second time in this exchange that you've misrepresented what I've said.


The only thing "cartoonish" here is your own characterization of what I said. The burden of proof is much lower when you're examining someone's fitness for public office, than when you're examining his fitness to live his life as a free person in society. Criteria that are entirely appropriate for removing someone from a position in government can still be utterly inappropriate for arresting him, let alone torturing him.

Quite the McCarthy lovefest going on by some. Excuse me while I vomit.

Blackstone, the ostensible reason for HUAC was to gather information on communist infiltration into our society for the purpose of developing protective legislation. The way it appeared to play out is nothing important was revealed, a lot of people had their lives ruined, particularly noncommunists who were called up just because of some past "association" with a so called communist front group or whatever. It was more of a vehicle for politicians to make a name for themselves. There was no legitimate function they served that couldn't be handled better by the FBI, which, by the way, was playing its own extra-legal fun and games. Talk to people who lost jobs in government, down to the post office level, simply for innocently signing a petition that they didn't know was communist backed.

By the way, McCarthy didn't go after Hollywood. You're thinking of HUAC.

People from the media, government, and the military were accused by McCarthy of being suspected Soviet spies or Communist sympathizers.

Blackstone. it is not necessary to prove that someone is a spy or has actually broken the law in some other way in order to legitimately establish that he doesn't belong in government. It's enough to show that his loyalties to this country are suspect. And in the 1950s, membership in the Communist Party, or heavy association with it, was not something that should have been allowed to go on among people working in the policymaking institutions of our government.

It's enough to show that his loyalties to this country are suspect.

The more important question is should a past association with the party or perhaps having someone in their family who was communist preclude their contributing to their country. For instance Oppenheimer had a wife who was a Communist and he presumably had some sympathies in that direction but nevertheless he successfully headed up the Manhattan Project and there is no evidence that he ever emulated his colleague Klaus Fuchs in turning atomic secrets over to the Soviets. Communists joined up and fought for our country, in fact many advocated taking on the fascists earlier and stopping them at the gestation stage in the Spanish Civil War. On that they were right.

Is a committed Catholic disloyal because of their strong positive feelings toward the Church, whose headquarters are in the Vatican? Can one be a Zionist and be loyal? Sympathy for an extra-national world view does not necessarily translate into national disloyalty.

It's not just a question of past association or family membership, but more importantly, of present association, whether as an official member or not.  I think the denial of Oppenheimer's security clearance was appropriate because of his many connections with Communists, and possible membership in the party.  It's just not prudent to have them in sensitive positions at a time like that.  Maybe he didn't commit any espionage, but could he have been trusted to report on a colleage who did, or to refrain from facilitating espionage in some other way that wasn't easily detectable?  It's not worth the risk.

Bentley's defection in November 1945 ended the "golden age" of Soviet espionage. The KGB immediately cut off all contact between its operatives and their American sources and recalled most of its people to Moscow. Within a few months, just as the cold war was beginning to heat up, the Russian spy rings were out of business. The man who took over the KGB's Washington station in 1946 had no American contacts and was reduced to summarizing material from the press, which, knowing little English, he could barely read. A few years later, the Russians tried to reactivate their contacts and find new ones, but thanks to Bentley and Venona, most of their former sources were under suspicion and could no longer provide useful information even if they had wanted to. Nor was the isolated and beleaguered Communist Party in any position to supply new recruits. Instead of active espionage, therefore, the KGB devoted itself to a mopping-up operation that tried to keep former agents from cooperating with US authorities.

There is considerable irony in the fact that just at the moment when it became axiomatic to treat all American Communists as potential Russian spies, the threat of that espionage had all but disappeared. The normal security procedures of the FBI and the rest of the counterintelligence establishment had effectively wiped out the underground Communist apparatus within the federal government. The onset of the cold war and the decline of US Communism insured that it would never be reconstituted. As Weinstein acknowledges, the KGB's American agents belonged to a unique political generation of Communist Party members who could convince themselves that helping the Soviet Union was the best way to fight fascism. When US Communism lost its momentum, the KGB lost its ability to attract volunteers; its future spies would have to be paid.
--------------------
How large their roles were remains unclear. Except for the obvious contributions of the Manhattan Project spies to the Soviet nuclear program, we know little about how the information these people gave to the KGB affected Soviet policy or harmed US interests. And, in any event, Weinstein demonstrates that whatever threat to the United States such espionage may have posed, it was gone by the time it became the main justification for the McCarthy-era purges. It may well be that the greatest damage the KGB inflicted on American society was not the filching of official secrets but the provision of a rationalization for the most widespread and the longest-lasting episode of political repression in our nation's history.

So how does Major explain Hanssen volunteering to be a Russian agent? "I've been thinking about that since the first time I saw his name on the computer when it first came up, and I felt like I got kicked in the stomach," Major says. "I could see his mind saying, 'I am sitting in this meeting and they're discussing how to catch spies, how to find people who are agents, and I'm the one they really want, and I'm right next to them.'"

That could have been an intellectual rush for Hanssen, Major says. "But to do that he had to compromise things that we stand for."

"He was able to cross that line; the rest of it just became the game," Major says.

Hanssen was also allegedly employed by the head of Soviet counter-intelligence, Leonid Shebarshin, the last director of the Soviet KGB.

"If you look carefully at the background of...our traitors, you'll find that they were betraying their fellows even when they were in kindergarten," says Shebarshin, who in the 1980s led the elite branch that oversaw double agents, including Hanssen, Ron Pelton of the National Security Agency and CIA turncoat Rick Ames.

"Traitors are not made, says Shebarshin, who lives in Moscow. "They are born. But it depends upon the circumstances and surroundings, whether the seeds of treason produce bloom or they just stay repressed."

Money often helped, but "not only money, sympathy," Shebarshin adds.

For example, Ames liked the people that he worked with at the KGB, according to Shebarshin. "For me, he was not a traitor. He was my comrade. He was my colleague. He was a person who was trying to help my country. And to hell with your country."

Gennadiy Vasilenko, a KGB recruiter who worked in the Soviet embassy in Washington in the '70s and '80s, thought of himself as a patriot, he notes. "The United States of America was the enemy No. 1."

Most of Americans who became double agents and worked for the Soviets were motivated "just for the money and the dissatisfaction with their bosses, with their lives, with their wives," Vasilenko observes.

Blackstone. The Vatican City and Israel have never been inimical to us, and the two ideologies you mention are not in opposition to our principles.

as an aside regarding the Spanish Civil War: if the Communists had won that conflict, Spain would likely have wound up a satellite of the Nazis following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which would have given them control of access to the Mediterranean Sea

No, you don't get it. Where did you get this "at one time or another associated with" business? I said, "the presence of Communists in the organs of government responsible for drawing up and implementing foreign policy (regardless of whether or not they were actually committing espionage) was definitely a problem that needed to be addressed." Nothing in there about people who might have once associated with Communists.

We do have a pretty clear idea of how the spies in the future would threaten US interests. These were not communists but people who could be bought and had their own curious views of the world.
Latter day espionage agents for the Soviet Union
Maybe we need to personalize the profiles of spies a little more rather than simply looking at their institutional connections.

I would agree that they weren't as much of a threat but as far as opposition to American constitutional principles I would not agree. Catholicism operates as an undemocratic hierarchical system that has historically been the flashpoint for some of the bloodiest wars ever fought. They also needed to be domesticated to the idea that free independent inquiry was not a basis for punishable heresy. Zionism runs directly counter to our principle of "equal protection under the law." It builds into its national legal structure the idea of the special status of a particular ethno-religious group. Our support for this unAmerican idea has cost us dearly in money and friendship around the world and left us more vulnerable to terrorist retaliation. It is easy also to also overlook the other side of the communist record. That is the willingness of communist parties to participate peacefully in the democratic process in any nation that will let them. France and Italy are notable examples. It wasn't the Marxist Allende who seized power undemocratically in Chile, but his opponent, the anti-Communist Pinochet.

Clearly the Spanish Republic, if it had won, would have been fighting with the allies against the axis, if that were necessary following a fascist defeat in Spain. Why would the Soviets want to undermine their own interests? And the Republic and all those volunteers had been fighting against the axis. No way would they accept a 180 degree turn about.

I was going by the infamous quote of McCarthy's where he demands are you or have you ever been a member of the [American] Communist party (or whatever communist party he had in mind).