Oh, I've read what you've been posting, and I particularly liked this:


I just finished that book. That you would use such a polemic as Ann Coulter for your primary source is... interesting.

I'm hoping, John, that in future threads, I might be able to use Michael Moore as a primary source, assuming your attempt here is successful.

Here's a couple of interesting articles for you:

Ann Coulter's Betrayal of the Anti-Communist Historians

Joe McCarthy: Dangerous Buffoon

Quark,

Nice try but that post you quoted was from the begining of this thread (at least in terms of where I came in) I have used others sources since then and quoted a couple.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that there were Soviet spies in the State Department though.

So McCarthy was right about his assumptions, that weren't necessarrily his.


Edited to add: Plus, while your sources quote other sources that I'm supposed to believe aren't biased (The Washington Post, unbiased ?) Ann Coulter uses historical documents.

It takes more than just saying

The venona tapes, the pumpkin papers, and a reference to intercepted Soviet cables

over and over again. and again. and again.
Proudly proclaiming that you have proven your point does not make it so. Just because McCarthy's scattershot targets hit some people who had an association with communism does not mean that he was right in the way he behaved or that he made the country safer. He was reckless and he was cruel.

As has previously been pointed out in this thread, anyone who ever makes an accusation that there are spies in America is right. There are spies here.

I concede your point that McCarthy was correct that there were spies in the State Department. However that does not mean that I agree with your conclusion that McCarthy was right. He used lies, bluffs, and bullying tactics to gain political power. He ran the emperor has no clothes game by calling anyone who challenged him a traitor. Referring to the Democratic party as the Commie-crat party is indicative of his demagoguery (sp?). And he did not care whose lives he destroyed. He used guilt by association and exploited the fears in this country.

In the evidence I have sorted through, some of the people he named were associated with communism and others seem to have been actual soviet agents. But I don't see evidence of him proving any of this.

Much less his accusations of Marshall or Acheson or anybody else he saw as a good political target. He was an enemy to the American way of life not a hero. He is proof that we can be our own worst enemies and that we must always be vigilant in guarding our personal liberties.

Eyeore,

This thread was decidedly about whether or not McCarthy was correct about there being Soviets or Soviet paid agents within administrations and within the State Department. Not whether or not he did it the way you wanted him to do it.

As I have previously stated, he was correct. No one can refute the evidence provided by intelligence cables.

The only other point I have made (and only out of defense, but not pertaining to the thread) was that had these investigations not been halted by the Presidents or the Senate, they would have cleared all those charged and prosecuted those not cleared.

If my wife had been murdered and I was not the killer I would cooperate. If I didn't then a judge would okay warrants to search etc. But being innocent it wouldn't happen that way. These people should have cooperated and the Senate should've okay'd an investigation. This is why people call the Liberals names and say they are soft on security (like I needed all this Cold War stuff as proof).

Instead the Liberals wouldn't here of it. That's where so much contempt comes from.

Anywho, now that I have repeated myself , again. I'll just ask that people concede the point. McCarthy was right about there being spies in the State Department.

Edited to add:

I don't know anybody was terrified or in fear during McCarthy's "reign of terror". Well maybe the people in the USSR being sent to the Gulgag or Siberia. Or the people watching their families starve to death in East Europe. Or maybe the people at Stalin's show trials, now those are crimes worth talking about. I have never met anyone that was in fear of McCarthy, but then I wouldn't associate myself with any Communists let alone traitors giving information to Russia. In-fact until his censure McCarthy was probably the most popular American politician of his time.

JL,

That's kind of funny because I started this thread. I did not mean it to be



Nor do I see how a reading of that post that makes the thread the way you decide it. You are using strong language without strong support by the facts at hand.

And people can refute whether McCarthy was shooting blanks or making credible and accurate accusations of people.

You also keep asserting that McCarthy was stopped before he had a chance to prove himself. He kept up his circus from 1950 to 1954. He was stopped by his own lies and his own tactics, not be a conspiracy from PResident Eisenhower and the people of congress in the 1950s.

There were some spies in the state department, but McCarthy had no idea who they really were.

This thread was about whether McCarthy was right. You decided that meant whether or not there was any truth whatsoever to his accusations that there were Soviet agents in the country during the same time that he randomly pointed accusations at hundreds of people. That does not mean that is what this thread was started to debate. Saying something again and again does not make it so or not so.

Eyeore,

Okay I'm sorry I thought that when you asked if Joe McCarthy was right, that meant; Was he correct? Which is what the question was, but if we're going to change the question midway I'll just stop posting here in this thread.

You see when you asked; Was McCarthy right? As in, was he correct? I thought you meant was McCarthy right, as in correct? Not was McCarthy inadvertantly right but making up allegations about those people for political reasons.

I must have been on drugs to be interpretting that question the way it was written.

Merely because you state something over and over and in bold red letters doesn't make it so, John Locke. Repeating your opinion that McCarthy was right as if it is an undeniable fact doesn't make it so.

You might as well be yelling from the rooftops that Britney Spears really does have talent. The only rational response to such a statement would be, "Yeah, sure. Whatever you say."

I'm not here to convince you that McCarthy was a drunken bum and it's equally certain you're not here to convince me McCarthy was a great patriot. Reasonable people can disagree and (for the most part) that is what we're doing here.

However, I never said McCarthy was a homosexual. I provided an example of a report that indicated that he might have been one. Even if he did chase 18-year old women around doesn't mean he wasn't at the least bisexual. I really could care less about McCarthy sexual orientation one way or the other. I haven't used his possible homosexuality and his bona fide alcoholism to "stifle" debate. I merely provided examples of his less than sterling character that you find discomforting. Your problem. Not mine.

Additionally, you can't embrace Ann Coulter's nasty little screed Treason as a reliable source on one hand and then try to distance yourself from it three or four pages into the debate later.

And McCarthy's tactics were very much relevant. He took the politics of personal destruction to new highs. Or would that be new "lows?" One example is that of what happened to actor Canada Lee:

Canada Lee, one of America's greatest black actors and a courageous civil rights activist, died in dishonor and penury in 1952, denounced as a Communist by the U.S. government, the entertainment industry and the media.

To Canada, the bitterest betrayal was by the American icon Ed Sullivan, a man who befriended Canada and used his powerful entertainment column to aid Canada's rise to stardom – only to later condemn the actor as a Communist to his millions of readers. Once a household name, Canada Lee is now a forgotten footnote in the history of the McCarthy era.

Born in 1907, Lee was a violin prodigy, jockey and prizefighter before he stumbled into acting. He was discovered by Orson Welles and shot to stardom in Welles' Broadway production of Native Son. As his career skyrocketed, Lee used the power of his name to fight for civil rights. He was a popular speaker at rallies by groups fighting for liberal causes; many of these groups later were denounced as Communist fronts by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), McCarthy and the FBI. Lee eluded the blacklist until a bizarre turn of events in 1949.

The FBI arrested a government girl named Judy Coplon for passing secret FBI files to her Russian boyfriend, a KGB agent. During her trial, it was discovered that one of the secret FBI files found in Judy's purse when she was arrested reported that Canada Lee was a Communist. The story made headlines in Washington, D.C. Ed Sullivan picked up the story and denounced Canada in his nationally syndicated column. Lee's career was destroyed; he died as a result of complications due to high blood pressure.

http://www.canadalee.com/canada_lee_who.html

Despite your sneering denial of I don't know anybody was terrified or in fear during McCarthy's "reign of terror". there WERE real people whose careers and lives were destroyed by this drunken, self-promoting arrogant zealot. McCarthyism wasn't simply about ferreting out Commies, John Locke. It was a club used by right-wingers to accuse and intimidate anyone involved in activities they considered "subversive."

Merely to be accused was to have your life examined and possibly ruined. There were a LOT of people like Canada Lee who died penniless and their careers prematurely ended because of the reckless accusations of craven opportunists like McCarthy. You have an abundance of sympathy, John Locke, for a mean little alcoholic. I reserve mine for those that were his victims.

Good riddance to a sad and sick time in American history and a even sadder and sicker man such as Joe McCarthy. I can only pray that his evil ideas were buried along with him.

McCarthy was right? Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

How much more disingenuous can you get, JL?

You never met anyone who was in fear of McCarthy? At only 23 (or maybe 24 now) years of age (according to your own info on this site), most of this stuff happened over a quarter century before you were even born. I would expect most involved to be long retired, or possibly even deceased, before you were old enough to hold any meaningful conversations with those accused, assuming you even attempted to.

Then to say that you wouldn't associate yourself with any communists? Well, maybe not directly, but considering your illegal Cuban cigar business (again according to info you posted on this site), you certainly do associate yourself with people who associate with communists.

That being the case, how do you know that any of your "friends of a friend" are not passing information along to Castro, or to former communists in the current Russian government? And if (a big "if", I admit) that is the case, how do you know that someone won't someday implicate you as a communist sympathizer, based on flimsy (at best) documents and/or maybe photographs, of your association with someone who deals with a communist in Cuba, known to be passing information? You can't of course, unless, and until it happens.

You see where this is going? That's how a lot of people's lives were ruined by McCarthy. Pure speculation and smear tactics, regardless of fact, and guilt by association. That's not an honest investigation, by any means, JL. It's a witch hunt.

First off they are far from different in that they were driven by alterior motives. Also the contention that Cotton Mathers did not hang a single witch is absolutly false.



The Salem Witch Hunts

The catch all phrase 'withcraft' included any use of divination that was destructive. To say that Tituba was not practicing witchcraft flies in the face of the obvious fact that it was here occultic practices that started and perpetualted the whole thing.

Now as to these, so called, proofs that McCarthy was right. The evidence was sketchy at best.



Moynihan's Law

They were both politically motivated hysteria and nothing of real substance was produce during the investigation led by McCarthy. McCarthy was not only wrong but a disgrace. Don't get me wrong J.L., I respect your opinion, as your opinion, but as far as what you are calling proof, it is far from conclusive. It certainly does not justify the abuses by McCarthy and the string of baseless accuasations and distortions that were so much a part of both the Salem witch hunts and the red scare of the post WWII era.

First off, let me start by saying that just because you question my statements over and over again, that doesn' tmake any of you right.

I have decided to ignore further discussion of alcoholism and homosexuality as I can't figure out how they pertain to the thread. I have concurred my opinion on these subjects and all the reports from Liberal in every part of the world isn't going to make me think McCarthy was gay.

Furthermore, I didn't say Cotton Matters never hung a witch, I said he never found a real witch. McCarthy found real Communists passing real secrets .

You know I just can't answer all these unrelated issues.

The burden of proof is now on you guys to disprove the Pumpkin Papers and the Venona Tapes and the other cables intecepted by the military from Soviets to American spies. You must prove that when Soviets went on TV thanking people like Alger Hiss and The Rosenburgs for their dedication and hard work, that they were somehow lying.

All anyone seems to do here is attack McCarthy's personal character and despite the fact that you all live in some media sick world where that works, it's not sliding with me.

That is why you keep reading McCarthy was right!

[/SIZE]

Because thus far, no one has given any proof otherwise. I have heard a lot of great stories of alcoholism and homosexuality and witch hunting, but not a one of you can produce any evidence to say that there were no spies in the State Department or in the Presidential Adminitrations. As I staed over ten times already, McCarthy knew that not everyone on his list was going to be guilty but he wasnted to investigate them to prove who was a Communist handing over secrets and who could go on their marry little way.

Now stop making me repeat myself and get to the facts. I want you to stop making snyde remarks like the one you'll probably make after quoting this paragraph and debate the issue! Was McCarthy right? Was he correct? Were there Communists in the State Department and in the Presidential Administration?

Not, was he gay? Was he an alcoholic? Was he correct about every charge? Just stop all the nonsense and answer the real question!

Was McCarrthy right, was he correct?

Edited to add:

Hey Phaedrus, don't quote me garbage. Go get me the proof that those tapes weren't all they were trumped up to be. Have you read the transcripts???

Now answer the question!

I have conceded the point that McCarthy was right in some of his allegations. The topic seems to now be centered on if he really had evidence to prove these allegations, or if he was simply firing shots in the dark trying to hit people. Is it not true that if you throw out enough accusations or generalizations such as stating 205 communist in the state department that in some cases you are going to be right? Does this justify the actions he engaged in and pursued?

From many of your posts I can only assume you have researched this topic in great detail. Would you be willing to post some information on the accuracy of his accusations? I have searched to discover how accurate he was, but I have not been able to find this information.

Regent,

Through out this thread I have done nothing but provide information pertaining to the guilt of his subjects, never once quoting the Venona tapes or the Pumpkin papers because I didn't want people claiming that we only know now but McCarthy didn't know then.

If you're not convinced that McCarhty knew what he claimed to know (BTW I have read McCarthy's speeches, several of them anyways, and I have only ever seen the figure 57 thrown out. Never 205) I can't convince you anymore.

However, this thread was set up with the title, was mcCarhty right. Was he correct. Did we have proof. These were the questions. All of which the answer to is, YES!

I can't do anymore except to say that I will not be strung into a debate and have the question turned on me.

If people here want to argue that McCarthy was inadvernantly correct while not having any real proof just start a new topic where that question is asked. I really doubt that I'd participate though because I can barely get people here to just admit the truth in this debate which is undeniable. So, how could I expect to do anybetter with a topic that would be only more vague than this one which is specific and full of physical evidence and fact?

Forgive me for being fed up.

JL, I believe I've already answered that question. When you say "was he correct in the fact that there were spies in the State Department", yes he was. He was right.

You are ignoring the fact, however, that he was wrong about specific people more than he was right. You are ignoring the fact that he was painting as communists and spies, all sorts of people that had nothing to do with communism or spying, except for the fact that they inadvertently knew a communist, or knew some one who knew a communist.

You are ignoring the fact that he was a bully, that he used smear tactics, illegal searches, illegal phone taps, and that in the course of a four year investigation, he was not able to make even one case hold up in court. Not one.

Now, just for the record, let me state categorically, that there are currently spies in the State Department! I am RIGHT! (Just don't ask me to produce any names at this time)

By the way, JL, I noticed that you also failed to respond to my last post:


Now, you can claim not to want to answer "these unrelated issues" all you want, but you were the one to bring them up, so I think it incumbent of you to reply to the questions you begat. Or, perhaps you don't want to answer them because you know that I am RIGHT?

The Original debate question:



Both question here have been answered in the positive. As Regent posted earlier, McCarthy was almost shooting blindly with his accusations. Although, he was correct in his assessment that their were people sympathetic to communism and actively sending secrets to the soviets. Also... he was wrong about some of the people he accused.

I think both parties in this heated debate need to concede that they were both correct and incorrect about McCarthy as a whole.

In addition the inclusion of all the character assassination brought up about a man who has passed away has no merit or adds any credibility to your argument.

Johnlocke,

Obviously you must have passed over my previous post in your zeal to prove your points. In my previous post I documented and quoted a reliable source that stated the number 205 was given in a speech to the Ladies Republican Club in Wheeling, West Virginia on February 9, 1950. The written speech actually stated 57, but witnesses say he said 205. It is discrepancies such as this that destroy his credibility.

Even if we were to make the assumption (as I already did in my previous post) that he had information from Hoover concerning the VENONA project, I am still calling into question the accuracy of his allegations. This allows the use of all the information we have today to determine if the allegations he made were correct. It is my opinion that at best evidence will only support 50 percent accuracy.

If the topic of this discussion is “Was McCarthy right or correct in the allegations he made….” Then the answer is yes and no. It then becomes a useless debate because both sides of the debate can prove they are right and wrong. The question I ask is not for proof of if he was right or wrong, but information depicting the level of accuracy in his allegations. This is regardless of the argument on whether he actually even had factual information.

Once again I ask can you provide any such information. This is not a challenge to your assertions of his being right, I am simply curious as to the how right/wrong he was.

johnlocke , No I have not read the enormous number of transcripts generated by the breaking of the Soviet code and neither have you. I have also noticed that not one quote from them has been used to substantiate the claim that McCarthy was right. You think my quotes are garbage? Up to that point I was open to the idea that McCarthy might have actually been right, if even by accident. Now I'm more convinced then ever that this is a lot of hype.

You did say that Cotton Mathers never hung a witch, then you changed it. Clearly the witch hunt in Salem was different from the McCarthy inquisition of accused Communists... or was it ? I think not.

Thank you. That's all that really matters.

I have named countless people who were in actuality stealing government secrets and giving them to Soviets. I've privoded proof and the governments has realted that these are facts. You have claimed that many people were innocent. Yet you haven't named one or given their story. I have named people who were even proven innocent by the Senate committee and then later found to be guilty. I have explained over and over again that McCarthy refused to "name names" until the Senate Liberals forced him to in public. I recited a story of how he was interrupted over 60 times and forced to submit the names in front of the press even after he begged to have it done behind closed doors because he was certain that if a proper investigation went through, he knew some of these people would have been cleared. What more can I say? I admit, not every one of his charges was accurate, but what does that matter? McCarthy admitted that fifty years ago.

Nevertheless, McCarthy was right about several people and he was right about their inner-goings on. I find it terribly difficult to believe that he was not interested in the truth, but on a political witch hunt, in which he just happened to be correct about most of his 57. Isn't that a coincidence to big for even Bill Clinton to deny???

Now for your allegations that I don't know enough people old enough to know about McCarthy.

You're right that most of my friends aren't old enough to remember it. Most of my friends are fourty and fifty years old. Some however are seventy-five and eighty years old. My grandpa, an actor in Hollywood at that time and close friends to many actors at the time told me that Hollywood had no real scare back then and that only members of the Communist party were really worried. Worried didn't get them sent to the Gulgag though did it? No it got a few writers and actors sent to paris for a few years to hang out with Picasso , some kinda torture huh?

In fact everyone I speak to who was of age in the early fifties said that McCarthy was very popular until his censure and that most Americans loved him and hated Communists and did precieve a Communist threat (oh imagine that, they were right). All of this is irrelevant as per I don't care what overpaid, narcisists in Hollywood have to say about anything iimportant. I work in that industry now and these people are disgusting and devoid of all moral contribution to humanity. They sink lower and lower into their chain smoking, alcoholic spousal abuse and overdose all they want.

And so I won't answer anymore questions pertaining to things outside this thread.

Edited to add: just because you don't like the way the thread is going or you've realized you were wrong doesn't mean you can change the topic of debate.

from JL

This statement from JL is really the heart of the issue I was originally trying to explore. I have not seen a reference to a credible accusation made by McCarthy that specifically turned out to be true. In this I mean I do not see a direct accusation made by McCarthy that was a correct characterization of his targets' relationship with communism or the Soviet Union.

This does not mean that any one person is responsible for providing that information to me. There are numerous (but not COUNTLESS) references to people in this thread and through the several informative links.

I am still searching. I believe that McCarthy was reckless, but since he had Hoover working on his side to try to bolster his case in the four years he was an active anti-communist leader I presume that McCarthy had some accurate information somewhere along the way.

I am yet to be convinced that the quote in this thread it true. But I am open to that possibility. I continue to disagree with his tactics of spraying blame wildly and using guilt by association to assert communist sympathies. I think it is rather easy to show his unfair accusations, and I am trying to land some good hard evidence of specific cases where he was right. And if this is a carrot, if this evidence is unearthed I (liberal teacher) will introduce it in my cold war lecture next month.

Edited to add
Here is a link that argues that soviet agents were active in the United States but McCarthy played little or no part in identifying them.
Despite McCarthy, Red Peril Really Was

Edited to add, take two.
My first post provided this list of names as people who McCarthy correctly accused.
Owen Lattimore
Edward Posniak
May Jane Keeney
Gustavo Duran
John Vincent Carter
Link

I searched the first name and came up with this fairly typical result from a conservative that could not conclude that McCarthy had it dead on.
Link




I will research the other names later. Anybody else that can find proof of a case of McCarthy being specifically right about a person, please post that information.

The longer this thread goes on the more it seems like it was given the wrong title.

Maybe it should have been called "Was John Locke right?"

Some Lockeisms since my last post:

First off, let me start by saying that just because you question my statements over and over again, that doesn' tmake any of you right.

That's true JL. And because you repeat the same statements over and over again doesn't make YOU right either.

All anyone seems to do here is attack McCarthy's personal character and despite the fact that you all live in some media sick world where that works, it's not sliding with me.

Gee, that's kind of harsh JL, but like it or not, McCarthy's personal character does factor into this historical debate and whether that's sliding with you is more of your problem than mine. I'm not sure what a "media sick world" is, but then I recalled Rush "Druglord" Limbaugh came back on the air yesterday and figured it had to be a inside information kind of thing I'm just not hip to.

Now stop making me repeat myself and get to the facts. I want you to stop making snyde remarks like the one you'll probably make after quoting this paragraph and debate the issue! Was McCarthy right? Was he correct? Were there Communists in the State Department and in the Presidential Administration?

Not, was he gay? Was he an alcoholic? Was he correct about every charge? Just stop all the nonsense and answer the real question!

This isn't a courtroom sir, and we're not required to answer your questions in a "yes" or "no" response. I believe that Phaedrus, Nite Guy, Quarkhead, Eeyore and yours truly have answered whether McCarthy was right and correct. It seems that because our responses aren't what you would prefer them to be John Locke, that you don't consider them valid responses at all. Once again--that's your problem and you'll have to work that out to your own satisfaction.

Hey Phaedrus, don't quote me garbage. Go get me the proof that those tapes weren't all they were trumped up to be. Have you read the transcripts???

Now answer the question!

That's just plain rude, JL and you really should refrain from trying to browbeat and intimidate another member of this board. Calling Phaedrus's sources "garbage" is vulgar and insulting. All the bold red fonts and exclamation marks in the world aren't going to convince others of the rightness of your arguments. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

If people here want to argue that McCarthy was inadvernantly correct while not having any real just start a new topic where that question is asked. I really doubt that I'd participate though because I can barely get people here to just admit the truth in this debate which is undeniable. So, how could I expect to do anybetter with a topic that would be only more vague than this one which is specific and full of physical evidence and fact?

I don't understand your first sentence here, but you are risking breaking your arm by patting yourself on the back. Why do you expect people "to just admit the truth in this debate which is undeniable" when some of us reserve the right to REJECT what you call the truth? You aren't trying to convince others of the rightness of your argument John Locke. You're trying to "win" the debate by getting others to surrender their viewpoint and accept yours as the correct one.

That isn't how it works. Nobody WINS or LOSES any debate on this board. We merely share our opinions and try to find supporting evidence that may sway one side or another to the position we are advancing. If you expect others to suddenly "see the light" and say, "Gosh, John Locke is right and we're all wrong," I fear you are doomed to be disappointed. It's just not gonna happen.

In fact everyone I speak to who was of age in the early fifties said that McCarthy was very popular until his censure and that most Americans loved him and hated Communists and did precieve a Communist threat (oh imagine that, they were right). All of this is irrelevant as per I don't care what overpaid, narcisists in Hollywood have to say about anything iimportant. I work in that industry now and these people are disgusting and devoid of all moral contribution to humanity. They sink lower and lower into their chain smoking, alcoholic spousal abuse and overdose all they want.

Your anecdotal musings about spouse-abusing, chain smoking, alcoholic, overdosing overpaid Hollywood narcissits have a mildly "you don't say" kind of interest to them JL, but they're no substitute for critical analysis and deliberate research. "Everybody I speak to..." and "most Americans loved him and hated Communists..." means absolutely zero in helping ascertain the rightness or wrongness of Joe McCarthy. How many is "everybody?" Ten people who were of age during the age of McCarthyism? Twenty? A hundred? Whatever your number is it's so small and statistically insignificant as a representative sampling that it is useless.

just because you don't like the way the thread is going or you've realized you were wrong doesn't mean you can change the topic of debate.

Excellent point. Can you take your own advice though?

Eyeore,

You seem to be under the impression that because you created ther thread, you can establish a new line of questioning because it was indespensibly proven that Joe McCarthy was correct about a number of people that he accused of being Communists.

You yourself provide a list of five names (only a fraction of the people who were Commies giving info to Russia) of people that McCarthy factually accused of being spies. You admit, he was right about there being spies and in several cases he was right about who they were.

Now you want to ask; Was he only inadvertantly correct by some cosmic accident? Did he never really know who the spies were but bamboozled people by throwing out the names of his political enemies....and then just happened to be accurate?!?!?! I can't believe that I'm hearing this . I've got Nighttimer acting like some high faluting police of AD (yet refusing to answer the real questions ) and you, supposing but also with no evidence that in some great cosmic joke God is playing on us that Joe McCarthy was dead on ceter wrong but just accidently happened to be correct about his assumptions in who was a Communist handing over secrets .

This is God's gretest joke, no not McCarthy, the fact that I'm still posting here.

I believe McCarthy was correct but disagree about how he went about it. Almost reminds me of Ashcroft, in trampling on people rights and accusations.

My biggest problem is this:



Poor Bill Clinton, he had to be around 10 years old(approx) at the time. I didn't know he was involved in the hearings. I learn something new everyday.

Doggone Bill Clinton he gets into more trouble!!!!!!!!!

Despite McCarthy, Red Peril Really Was

I have yet to see anyone try to argue in this thread that there was no such thing as Soviet spys. The point is that McCarthy was wrong in how he went about trying to expose them and accomplished next to nothing. In fact, he may well have did more harm then good. Better to let ten guilty go free then to allow one innocent to be persecuted. Are 5 spies (caught apart from McCarthy's inquisition BTW) worth the other 155 that were unduly ridiculed and damaged without the benefit of due process worth it? Like I've said from the begining, there is no law against being communist, or even a member of the communist party. It is wrong to attack someone publicly as subversive because they are communist, or liberal, or even conservative. Do the innocent caught up in this merit no consideration on our part, because that's the whole reason that due process is required.

I am under the impression that when I created this thread that I asked whether McCarthy could be proven right. You are trying to perform the amusing task of telling me what I was thinking about when I posted the question. You are also claiming that I am trying to change my impression of the question as the thread continues and I have somehow had my opinion proven to be incorrect.

Several of us have conceded that when McCarthy said there were spies in our government he was correct about that. I have posted several links to explore that idea. What I have been asking from the beginning (and I have tried very hard to maintain my civility while rhetoric keeps getting ramped up in this thread) is does anybody have proof of McCarthy being right.

You think that the fact that there were communist agents in the United States when McCarthy unleashed his campaign in the United States is proof that he is right. You also have said that the existence of venona/Pumpkin/Cable information has proven that he was right.

Under those standards you are right. Your point has been made multiple times to that effect. I too wonder why you keep posting in this thread.

I have been trying to find specific accusations made by McCarthy that were accurate. My search has been in vain, despite your supposedly mentioning countless people. I have tried to find posts on both side of this issue and I have posted links to them. I also listed the five names that I have found specific allegations of by McCarthy and have begun to put them to the test.

But I have yet to find (and I am still searching, so please let me know if I missed this evidence in an earlier post of yours) proof that McCarthy was accurate/correct about a specific accusation he made(about a supposed communist agent in this county). My whole point all along has been that I can not find any proof when McCarthy was dead on center right.

I would offer as evidence that McCarthy was reckless the fact that he accused George Marshall and Dean Acheson of being communists and that he was convinced of a communist conspiracy at Fort Monmouth where he failed to prove his case.

If you believe you have indispensably proven your point, why do you persist in repeating yourself in here? If you have proof of people he correctly accused and was dead on center about, then please provide the names. I want to know because I believe he must have been right about somebody specifically.

Well, gee, JL, if all you wanted was a list, I'm more than happy to provide one. I thought others had done a fair job of that here, but maybe not, so here's my list:

General George Marshall
Composer Aaron Copland
Attorney for the United States Army, Joseph N. Welch
Correspondent and columnist Drew Pearson
Actors Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, Lillian Hellman
Playwright Arthur Miller

Granted the actors listed, were accused by HUAC, and not McCarthy directly, but Arthur Miller was accused by McCarthy, and then turned over to HUAC, along with several other actors and writers, thus setting up the Hollywood Ten. Writers, actors and producers in Hollywood who had the gall to stand up to both McCarthy and HUAC, and refuse to answer any questions. They were jailed for anywhere from 6 months to a year, merely for asserting their constitutional rights.

That was the really big start of the blacklists in Hollywood, which didn't end until 1960. Kirk Douglas, who had a money stake in Spartacus refused to have the movie released until one of the screenwriters, who was blacklisted and wrote the script under a pseudonym, had his real name listed in the credits. That broke the hold that HUAC had on Hollywood.

So, there you go. A listing of people that were accused, but not guilty. So, as I said earlier, yes he was right. But he was also wrong. And, as I said in an earlier post, I can make the exact same assertion today. We have communist sympathizers and spies in the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, and probably even in the White House. And you know that sooner or later, I'll probably be proven right, even though I can't name names. Doesn't mean it's not so.

The thing that bothers me most, however, is the fact that you continue to deny how slimy his tactics were. That he was guilty of actual crimes in the effort to rid the country of people who he saw as lawbreakers.

And finally:


I didn't change the topic to debate, you did, through your "elaborations". Once you post some of the sweeping assertions you did, am I not permitted to respond to them? If you don't like the direction your own statements take the debate to, that's not my problem, it's yours. Funny how you think you can just end the discussion with a "I refuse to talk about that", after you yourself took the debate to that area. That being said, I can only conclude that I must have hit pretty close to the mark to have you refuse to respond.

And history has proven him to be correct in his allegations against specific people.

None the least of which was Annie Lee Moss. She was even acquitted by the Senate committee and later proven to be guilty. You listed 5 names youerself of people he accurately identified, but you then go on to say that he didn't have any evidence. Are you suggesting that by chance he accurately named off Communists? If you are not than I think it is obvious that he was accurate in his information and his charges. If you are suggesting that this all happened by chance than I just don't know what to say. Those six certainly weren't the only ones as would be later proven by those sets of documents I named previously.

Edited to add:

NiteGuy,

I'm not going to discuss people accused by HUAC. This is about McCarthy. BTW I wasn't looking for names of innocents, that quote is out of context. Also that last statement wasn't directed at you.

Annie Lee Moss was caffateria workers promoted to code breaker and the question of her association with the Communist party came up. When asked if she was ever a member she acted like she had never heard of such a thing and claimed it must be a case of mistaken identity. Sometime later it was found that he name and age and address where identical to the record of the local chapter of the Communist party which proved one thing, that she had not only been a member, but when asked about it she lied through her teeth.

I still think that McCarthy was fighting windmills but this one account does give one reason for pause. It's generally well known that the Rosenburgs passed crucial secrets to the Soviets with minimal effort. I am also finding that people who were known to be Communist were given some pretty high ranking positions throughout the Federal Government. Some think this might have had something to do with why Yalta was such a power grab for the Soviet's and why the United Nations turned out to be more socialistic and less capitolistic in their agenda. Still I don't see this vast conspiricy McCarthy imagined but more importantly he conducted the hearing like an inquisition.

I've went through some of the transcripts the questions are almost all; Are you a member of the Communist party? are the people in Russia and China under Communist dictators? and most chilling of all, Do you know of any other Communists in the Federal government? Its no secret that if you wanted to get out of those hearings without further problems, you had to name names. There is one major problem here, he abadoned due process. This is far more important to American jurisprudence then some people realize.

Conservatives no longer rant about Communists, the catch phrase is liberal, and having been an avid talk radio fan, I believe the terms are synonymous in the lexicon of the left. Was McCarthy right about their being Communists in the Federal Government? Sure he was. Was he right about anyone being a member of the Communist party being a spy bent on sedition? No, and half a century after this hysteria has subsided we should be considering how this kind of a witch hunt mentalitiy can spoil the best of intentions, and soil what would otherwise be an impecable reputation.

Phaedrus,

We have alreafy established that there were in fact spies in the federal government.

As I have learned, the question is whether or not Mccarthy was right in his accusations of the people he charged were Communists.

I'd like to present an hypothetical analogy here.

Let's say a leftwing firebrand Senator began making accusations that many conservatives in the federal government were racists, and were in fact members of racist organizations like the CCC or the KKK. Using demonizing language and intimidating tactics, he names names. He presents a long list of "racists."

History eventually shows that not only were some of the named people known to have made possibly racist comments, there were some few who actually were members of these organizations.

Though the Senator had been reviled by most conservatives and liberals for his tactics - he ruined more than a few careers with his accusations and character attacks - the revelation that some of the people he named did turn out to be members of the CCC gives a few hardcore leftists pause. Maybe he was a hero, after all! He may have lowered the bar of civil debate; he may have sullied numerous careers and helped feed a national frenzy in which people who said anything remotely racist were blacklisted and ruined; he may have behaved shamelessly; but he was right. At least technically, and in at least a few cases.

What do you think of my Senator, johnlocke? Hero or villain?

johnlocke,

We have also established that there is not law against being Communist. If all you are arguing is that there were spys with Soviet connections and members of the Communist party in the Federal government then anyone with any sense at all would have to agree. On the other hand the way he abandoned due process in these hearings was ridiculas. There were better ways of dealing with Communists and like I said, he did more harm then good. So I concede your point about him proving there were a large number of Communists in the government but most of them were not spys or subversives and his motivation was political.

Phaedrus,

I had posted earlier that two laws were used that made Communist Party affiliation something that could be prosecuted as criminal. These were the Smith Act of 1940(originally intended to stop the spread of fascism) and the 1950? or so McCarran Act.

However, the 2nd Red Scare went after people who had affiliation with the communist part in the 1930s and early 1940s. The Soviet Comintern Party line int he 1930s was the Popular Front or cooperation with and support of democratic governments while the fascist threat loomed, and then in the early 1940s our government and society were guilty of aiding and abetting the communist system by helping it prevail in World War II as an official position of alliance.

It was when the cold war started that the soviet party line changed to become something actively subversive inside the United States.

But for a time Communist party affiliation was in fact illegal.

I also plan on freeing up some time researching the stories of the six names I have found so far. I will post my results in here and look forward to the hunt.

Quark,

You are way too intelligent to accidently leave me with a story so full of holes, so I have to believe they are placed where they are for me to walk right through them and into a trap.

But in the interest of good fun, I'll give it a go.

I'm even gonna take the bandages off my fingers to type this one out.

First and foremost, being a racist isn't illegal. It might be disgusting like Communism, but it isn't illegal.

Second, this is politics, people use deomnizing language all the time. Look at how the left is characterizing Bush, heck they called Reagan the anti-Christ.

Third, does he willingly name names? McCarthy didn't name names until forced to by the Senate, he implicitly stated over and over again that some of his names would be cleared and so didn't feel it was appropriate to name names. In point of fact he was once interupted over 60 times while making a statement by a Democrat Senator trying to make McCarthy "name names".

Fourth, history can prove anything it wants but as I said later, it's not a crime to be a racist. They'd have tarnished reputations forever, but what would it prove. All this is basically leading (as you can probably see by now) that being a racist isn't illegal and they aren't (not yet according to the hypothetical) using their power to hold others down. The Communists were using their authority and their positions to transfer classified and top secret details to the Soviets.

To be honest Quark, your Senator sounds like a piece of garbage, but he wasn't doing it to save the country like Mccarthy was. And he didn't do anything particularly useful, unless these racists were using their autority to legislate holding other peoples down. In that event, had this Senator blown the lid on people who were using their power to hurt America or Americans, he would have been justified.

Joe McCarthy was censured for the same reason that Jack and Bobby Kennedy were killed, for the same reason Nixon was hated by the Liberals and the same reason why Reagan had an attempt on his life, on top of the demonization of him by the Liberals, they were tough on Communism

Sorry. Wrong again.

McCarthy was censured because he brought shame and disgrace upon the institution of the U.S. Senate.

JFK was killed by a guy who had Marxist leanings, not communist. RFK was killed by Sirhan Sirhan who wasn't a commie either.

Nixon was hated by "the Liberals" because he was a swinish, corrupt, vile and repugnant evil little toad of a man. He was so paranoid and obsessed with winning at any cost he had his stooges break into the Democratic National Committee headquarters to find some dirt on a candidate (George McGovern) who had no chance of beating him anyway. Nixon was so crooked he had to be corkscrewed into the ground when he kicked off.

John Hinckley wasn't a commie either. He was trying to impress Jodi Foster by busting a cap in Ronnie R. Go figure.

Nighttimer,

Some people believe that different circumstances befell the Kennedy's than others. Infact 81% (according to the latest ABC polls) think so.

This will probably lead to another thread but here goes... I think that Jack Kennedy was shot by Soviets, whether that be Oswald and a helper or what ever you wanna believe. Oswald was an agent with Russian linguists skills and spent a lot of time in Russia. The assasination of Jack is one of those circumstances that I wish we could prove. He was killed and the cover up was so extensive that it could only have come from within. That's why I believe that it was Communists within the government. Who else wanted him dead.

Bobby Kennedy was shot from a much closer distance than Sirhan and he was shot with low cal .22 . I think that was his gaurd behind him, that was right after he won California.

I won't debate those anyfurther here because it's innapropriate and I couldn't prove it like I could with the Venona tapes and McCarthyism.

Nixon.. your opinion is.... not mine.

Ronnie's shooter was a commie pig and like Jack Kennedy, I can't prove it cause there's no hard evidence. What I can say was that he was a failure .

Now don't beat me to it, I'm gonna go set up a Jack Kennedy thread.

I for the life of me can find no merit in McCarthism which has come to be synonymous with the Inquisition and the Salem Witch trials of 1692. I have found virtually nothing that supports these bizarre hearings and we would do well to be warned that the wolf often wears sheeps clothing.



McCarthy's reckless cruelty?

What did this man ever do to stop communists? If anything he undermined Democracy by the arrogant abuse of power.

Most people draw this conclusion after hearing the "Have You No Decency?" speech. The trouble is, they didnt read what came before it. As described in Coulter's book, when a liberal is out-foxed, he resorts to crying.

Of course there where Communists in the goverment.

The issue is over purging citizens from the goverment as a means of silencing any opposition to imperialism. McCarthy was right that there where Communists (or more often fellow travelers and sympathisers) but he was wrong to use totalitarian tactics to eliminate democratic opposition.