It has recently been asserted in another thread here in AD that McCarthy was proven to be right in his accusations. Now historians generally concur that McCarthy was full of bluster and had little but imagination behind his allegations. The number on his list was constantly changing and he ended up by accusing people in the army.

Recently I have been hearing that McCarthy was right as revealed by recent Soviet document disclosures but I have yet to have seen any specific proof about McCarthy being right.

Does anybody in AD have proof of McCarthy being right? Of him being wrong?

Here is some evidence for the right side.
"Coulter's New Book Proves McCarthy Was Right"


Here is another link supporting revision
The Hidden Truth About Joseph McCarthy


Here is one on the wrong side.
What Bill O'Reilly Should Have Told Ann Coulter

After considerable demonization by the left, liberals and Democrats for years, it seems that Senator Joseph McCarthy WAS correct. That the administrations of FDR and Truman were riddled with communists sympathizers and communists themselves. The most notable Soviet operative being Alger Hiss, FDR's foreign policy advisor and first secretary general of the United Nations.
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/january_2000_5.html

If not for the persistence of those who wanted the truth and the declassified files STILL coming forth, McCarthy would have forever remained the "boogyman."

There are many sites to corroborate McCarthy's allegations.
This link is an on-going research on the hearings, trials, and recently released files.
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/

SoCal, I keep finding these references to Soviet agents too, and I am trying to get at the meaning. What was a soviet agent. Was being a member of the communist party in the 1930s when the Soviet Union was using a policy to ally with and support democracies in their popular front campaign being a soviet agent.

Or does a Soviet agent mean, that in the service of the government these people passed forward information to the government of the Soviet Union in acts of treason?

And Hiss was a HUAC trial and that was Nixon's claim to fame, but I am not sure what Hiss was convicted of perjury for. Was it for passing the Pumpkin Papers or something else?

For the record, I believe my links were edited in to the opening post in this thread while SoCal was posting.

Does the emergence of Soviet intelligence about Americans being Soviet Agents make McCarthy right if he was making accusations that proved to be incorrect. AS in the case of George Marshall? Was it right of him to call the democratic party the Commie-crat Party? I will continue to look for the definition of Soviet agent but I have a hard time supporting a revision of the reuptation of McCarthy to call him a hero.

I don't know enough of the specifics to debate it this way. However, I do have an informed opinion which I'll state and then shut up: McCarthy turns out to have been right about a lot, but was still a jerk with no class.

Communism was not the dirty word prior to WW2 that it was turned into after WW2. Like all demagogues and pwer mongers, McCarthy used a shred of truth for his own politicial ends and then started pointing fingers and hurling accusations at poeple that were innocent, a' la Nazi germany shortly after hitler came to power, the techniques are the same, but thank god, the outcome was different- he was exposed as the coward and liar he was. Yes, Alger Hiss was a spy, and so were many others, but the scapegoating works very well with the week minded, and poeple like Ann Coltier, Rush Limbaugh know this, and use a shred of truth, then lie about the rest, and thier gullible listeners eat it up!

I have never seen McCarthy referred to as a "hero" per se. He was just a senator who had some information of various member of FDR's administration being members of the communist party and searched for the truth. Some may want to call him a hero, but then again some people call Stalin a hero also. subjective I feel.

Eeyore, the links I posted are pretty good in presenting just facts about the allegations, players, trials and outcomes as the years progressed. Richard Nixon became quite involved. papers are to this day still becoming declassified. the US seems to be more forthcoming in declassifying material, our judicial system just appears to lend itself to that fact, than Russia on matters of communist operatives. USSR remained reluctant to admit to anything as is evident in the numerous declassified CIA activities on a multitude of activities as opposed to the KGB and their activities.

as an aside... before the publication on the incidiousness of the KGB as written in "The Black Book of Communism," there was only minimal truthfull information on the KGB.

That's why this subject still remains very interesting.

Not trying to be combative here. But in some circles McCarthy is regarded as a tragic hero figure of the anti-communist crusade.

Senator Joe McCarthy



ALL HAIL ANN COULTER - CHAMPION OF THE DUMB

Not my title. Just making the first link I could find to Coulter's claim that McCarthy was a hero.

Eeyore,

Is there a reason why Ann Coulter is so important in this debate? She came along way after the fact. Pardon me if I don't read that post as coulter is maddog "right" and while she may presents some important factual information, she is not the last-word authority. Obviously by the title the author of that link is most likely maddog "left." This gets nowhere and is a total waste.

read non-biased non-partisan facts without the editorialization...



from your link http://history.freeyellow.com/mccarthy.htm

You see SoCal, using Coulter's statements in conjunction with McCarthy is a tactic of association. By posting McCarty with Ann Coulter(who is a right wing political hack) you cast a negative light in what ever subject is being discussed about McCarthy.

Edit to add



Wow now that is some serious spin. "Shred of truth"? Is that what you call the truth when you don't like it? Or is that what you call the truth when it hurts?

Having read some of Ann's books and also aware of Rush's topics I am curious how such an accusation can be made with any real credibility. I do not consider myself weak minded or gullible, and do not feel that many of the topics they discuss focus only on a single shred of evidence.

I do feel that some of their opinions are stretched, but they are certainly no different than many on the other end of the Political spectrum. Mr. Moore would be just one example.

As for the subject of McCarthy, I think much of the criticism of him stems from the manner in which he went about exposing or accusing those who were involved as agents with in our government. He was very vocal and very aggressive. This in presentation style always causes a stir. As to the facts of his accusations, I think we will see more revealing information in the years to come. But I will go perform more research on this topic for it has intrigued me.

McCarthy Was right. Period.

Senator Joe McCarthy was elected to Senate as a moderate Republican and sat on Senate commitees (not any House Commitees, so don't claim HUAC was his pet).

After sitting on intelligence commitees Joe McCarthy learned that the Soviets were actively trying to infiltrate Presidential Administrations and the military to gain knowledge of US military deployments and secrets for the creation of an atomic bomb. In fact Stalin himself admitted that it was the duty of the Soviets to get this info if it would not be given to them.

Here is a list of people within early coldwar Presidential Admitinstrations that McCarthy accused of being not just Communists, but traitors and syndicates giving information over to the enemy. I will not list a single person who was not proven guilty by one of a few things; The admissions of guilt would be obtained by either the Pumkin Papers, the Venona Soviet tapes, or the admissions of Soviets either late into or after the Cold War, thanking in public those that indeed helped the USSR acheive its' goals in espionage and other types of hard evidence.

Alger Hiss, Donald Hiss, Dean Acheson, Kim Philby, David Greenglass and his sister
Ethel Rosenburg and her husband Julius, Judith Coplon (arrested while handing over counter-intelligence papers to a Soviet), Harry Dexter White, Frank Coe, Solomon Adler, Lauchlin Currie, Duncan Lee, Owen Lattimore, Joseph Davies, Harold Ickes, Laurence Duggan, Klaus Fuchs, Army Captain Irving Peress and the list actually goes on and on to include Annie Lee Moss, the center of attention in the play A Question Of Loyalty. This play ends in whirlwind performance where Annie Lee Moss holds up a telephone book and proclaims her innocence by being one of three other Annie Lee Moss' in that book. Had the Senate actually looked in the phone book they would have realized that she was one of one Aniie Lee Moss' but as we already know we can't count on Democrats and Liberals to watch over the security of the nation.

In fact only a few months into Eisenhower's Presidency he made a bold manuever by having his attorney general go on TV and announce to America that President Truman had appointed a top Soviet spy to be the top US offical at the IMF after having been told by credible sources and a mounting pile of evidence about what he was doing.

Indeed, I believe the Cold War biographers (with no political ties to either party) John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr said it best when they said "The [venona] cables expose cavil the American Communist party as an auxiliary of the intelligence agencies of the Soviet Union" and they go on to say that the members of the Communist party within Presidential Administrations was like a fifth column of military working within the United States Government for the USSR, trying fell America as a capitalist society.

What's not disturbing is Joe McCarthy and his so-called "abusive" tactics. In fact though some people don't like the way he did things, he was right and he may be the reason I'm not typing this in Russian.

What is disturbing are the ways in which the Democratic party, the Liberal bias in the Press (mostly at eh NY Times, but certainly not limited to them) and the Liberal elite (or Aristocracy) of the universities aided, abedded and gave comfort to the enemy in a time of war.

While the 10 people from Hollywood who were questioned about their position were given all their rights to a fair trial with lawyers and discloser and due process, people in the Ukraine were starving to death when they weren't walking down the path to the gulgag. The Soviet Union is knowingly the largest offender of human rights violations in the history of the universe not even second to the Pheonician atrocities for which the Hebrew army dispatched every living soul from this earth who participated in such acts, but noooo, "it's America, stupid" when it's time to look back at the fifties.

In fact I believe as Ann Coulter says... "If you were alive in the fifties, you have to watch a lot of PBS to know there was a fear in America."

Most Americans sided with McCarthy then and soon all the Liberal Propaganda that represses truth in this country and lies about McCarthy will fall under their bafoonish leadership that today is bringing the party closer and closer to disgrace. Look to Kentucky and Missourri if you want to know why Dean wants to Represent "Poor [dumb] southerners with gun-racks in their trucks and Confederate flags stickers in their windows".

The Drudge Report and Ann Coulter seem utterly devoid of anything of substance. How this man can be considered right much less a hero is a mystery to me. "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" This stinging attack on the Senator by the Counsel for the Army effectively ended McCarthyism before a shocked television audience.

The End of McCarthyism

For a more substantive treatment of the topic of the infamous witch hunter, NPR has an online resource on the release of the transcripts of private interview by McCarthy behind closed doors released last May.

Closed-Door McCarthy Transcripts Released Documents Shed Light on "Executive Sessions"

The abuse demonstrated by McCarthy is remarkably simular to the verbose pedantic rants of right-wing talk show personalities made so popular during the Clinton administration. Its emotionally charged hype over substance. Where are these mythical traitors McCarthy ranted about at the Republic National Convention. The Rosenbergs were tried, convicted and executed for treason around that time. Anyone want to hazard a quess at how many traitors were proscecuted as a result of McCarthy's hearings?

Phaedrus,

Did you read anything I posted before your post? Will you please reckognize the that McCarthy was dead on, center accurate that there were Communists infested throughtout these administrations and they were passing secrets off to the enemy. BTW almost every peice of fact in my post comes from Ann Coulter's book Treason and I haven't begun to even scratch the surface of what she had to say about the Cold War so perhaps you could elaborate on anything in your post?

The Venona Tapes and the Pumpkin papers clearly outline the guilt of people through out the Roosevelt and Truman adminstrations.

SoCaliente 1



I am inclined to think along the same lines that you do,SoCaliente 1. First he was thought of as making wild accusations,then thought of maybe telling the truth. When it ends,who knows how history will finally write his impact on America.

Sleeper:



And sleeper you hit the nail on the head. With Ann Coulter agreeing with McCarthy,that sure doesn't advance his case very well. But we have others that come along and use her name. Such as johnlocke.

johnlocke:



or to further that cause:





Its seems we have went from Ann Coulter being the only person with credibility, to anyone else with a different point of view definitely not credible. Isn't this lady the same one that had to make several retractions to her book and then the retractions weren't exactly correct.

I believe it is best to wait until all the evidence comes in without making an absolute statement.

Popeye,

Not to my knowledge. I don't of any of Ann Coulter's retractions (not to say I don't believe you) but even if they exist, what did they pertain to? Anywho, quite unimportant being that the Venona Tapes and the Pumpkin papers and the confessions of Soviets all point out that McCarthy was right.

What can you say excpet that you didn't like his tactics? And furthermore perhaps if anyone in those administrations had been even remotely alert or listened to the cries of the Senate Commitees, he wouldn't have had to be so strong handed.

Point being, McCarthy was right.

Edited for grammar, as alternate disclaimer I might add that that does not imply that this now has perfect grammar

Since Ann Coulters has been mentioned in several posts on this debate, I have a comment.

johnlocke:



Read the following article:

http://cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/02/6/coulter.asp





All I am saying is a lot is being based on one person who has had a history of not quite telling the truth.

Until some one with more credibility comes along, I don't have enough evidence to base an opinion on McCarthy and allegations.

What is the point in people discussing this matter if you are going to respond in this fashion JL? Truth, fact and "right" are all subjective and your castigation doesn't establish you as the pillar of objective reason. There is tremendous cause to believe that McCarthy was wrong, and one book isn't enough to simply override all criticism.

Joe McCarthy was a scumbag.

And apparently when his fellow senators got good and tired of his grandstanding and witch hunts they made clear how sick of McCarthy they were by censuring the throughly mediocre senator from Wisconsin.

CENSURE OF SENATOR JOSEPH MCCARTHY
Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned.

Sec 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, in writing to the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Censure Charges (Mr. Watkins) after the Select Committee had issued its report and before the report was presented to the Senate charging three members of the Select Committee with "deliberate deception" and "fraud" for failure to disqualify themselves; in stating to the press on November 4, 1954, that the special Senate session that was to begin November 8, 1954, was a "lynch-party"; in repeatedly describing this special Senate session as a "lynch bee" in a nationwide television and radio show on November 7, 1954; in stating to the public press on November 13, 1954, that the chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Watkins) was guilty of "the most unusual, most cowardly things I've ever heard of" and stating further: "I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn't think he'd be stupid enough to make a public statement"; and in characterizing the said committee as the "unwitting handmaiden," "involuntary agent" and "attorneys-in-fact" of the Communist Party and in charging that the said committee in writing its report "imitated Communist methods -- that it distorted, misrepresented, and omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible rationalization" in support of its recommendations to the Senate, which characterizations and charges were contained in a statement released to the press and inserted in the Congressional Record of November 10, 1954, acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity; and such conduct is hereby condemned.

Source: 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Resolution 301 (2 December 1954).

Popeye,

I'm skeptical of these allegations yet I'll accept them. However treason has no such problems.

Everything I posted in my post anyhow is backed up by history so feel free to check the facts and then you and I can agree that McCarthy was right.

popeye -
there are people who feel that McCarthy, despite all the demonization of him, was a hero. Everyone has their own idea of what a hero is.

whether he can be classified as a hero is neither here nor there. what is more important is that the man was vindicated. there WERE Communist connected people in high positions within the FDR and Truman administrations. The man, in the end, was correct. Does that make him a hero? perhaps to some it does. Having soviet sympathsizers uncovered in the white house was no small task.

Think about if that happened today. there would be at least two members of AD, since they have declared themselves communists, who would most likely not believe him. then there are those who, while not communists outright, sympathsize with the ideology. think they would like him any better? then there would be like those eho would think... commies in a Democratic whitehouse? why not. they are typically more inclined to share at least some of the same social sentiments, far more that Republicans? By all means, investigate it.

suffice it to say, there were soviet spies, commies, operatives...whatever you'd like to call them, IN the US govt.

for the same reason I won't read Al Franken's books, I won't read Coulter's. They may very well have quite a number of factual content in their books, but the extreme left-wing-right-wing editorializing hateration on both sides turns me right off. just the facts man...just the facts. It's the hate that sickens me.

SoHot,

I concur that McCarthy was a hero. So was Nixon for his efforts as well. So was Reagan for resolving the threat all together.

"When Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people's patriotism, he was wrong. He was wrong, and a senator from Connecticut stood up to him, named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy. You were wrong to attack my patriotism."

--- Governor Bill Clinton to President George Bush/0ct 11 1996 presidential debate

johnlocke :I read exerpts from the book and Treason is a strong word from a rant such as her's that is so lacking in substance. I do know that McCarthy was censored, the Senate revised the rules so allegations could be answered, and the Supreme Court reinforced the principles of due process to protect people from this kind of political persecution. Now I ask you, can you elaborate on these allegations of treason and tell me how many people were tried and convicted of crimes againt the United States as a result of McCarthy's supposed heoric crusade to expose them. Treason is the gravest capitol crime in American jurisprudance, punishable by death not administrative harassment.

Phaedrus,

I don't have an exact number off hand but I'll look. However nothing in your post nor Nighttimer's quote from Bill Clinton does anything to prove that Joseph McCarthy was wrong. Infact thanks to the Pumpkin Papers, the Venona tapes and the confessions of Soviets and ex-Soviets, we know that he was right. Can anyone refute that? No, because he was right. So now we to this day have Democrats and Liberals (not much of a difference anymore) who still can't see that there was a snake right under our nose waiting to bite us. Please tell me how I can trust the Democratic party with the leadership of this country when they don't know Saddam Hussein & Osama bib Laden are threats and won't admit that the Soviets were a threat???

Likewise, I think I can conjure up some relavant source material but the fact is all he was doing was exposing people who were communists. There is nothing illegal or subversive about that BTW. Communists often signed petitions and got on ballots at that time and sided with his Democratic opponent in the Senate race that got him elected. This was all political and hardly heoric, it was a mudslinging campaign and the worst thing that ususally happen to exposed was they lost there jobs are virtually all who fought being fired were reinstated. The episode where McCarthy went after supposed subversives at Monmouth 26 of the 34 were investigated and cleared and the other 8 were overturned.

Prove he was right or wrong? Right or wrong about what? I offered what I thought was a link to an interesting interview on the subject. I also believe that this was all political hype and I can prove beyond any doubt that no one was convicted of treason or subversion as a result of his rants. In fact virtually everyone he accused was vindicated, even if they were some kind of Communists, since that's hardly illegal.

1. He had alleged that these people were spying for the Soviets.
2. Spying for the Soviets is illegal. it is treason.



not exactly.The allegation was that Hiss had helped getting confidential govt documents to the Russians. An illegal offense if convicted. Hiss, due to the "statute of limitations," could not be tried for espionage unfortunately.

He did however serve 4 years in prison for perjury. It wasn't until 1995 that Soviet files started being made public that showed Hiss's guilt.

McCarthy, in his allegations of Hiss was right on.

I think this is what they mean by "consider the source."

While it's a bit amusing to observe this revisionist history about a horrible bullying drunkard like Joe McCarthy, the fact that a blonde bimbo with more skills in vitriol than verification wants to redeem his reputation can't go unchallenged.

"While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were known to the secretary of state and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping policy of the State Department," McCarthy said, holding up a scrap of paper.

By the time McCarthy got to Salt Lake City, the next stop on his speech itinerary, McCarthy—an alcoholic—could not remember the number he had cited. He told his audience there that the number of Communists was fifty-seven.

FBI agents like Robert Lamphere who worked counterintelligence were aghast at Hoover's support of McCarthy. "McCarthyism did all kinds of harm because he was pushing something that wasn't so," Lamphere said. To be sure, the Venona intercepts showed that over several decades, "There were a lot of spies in the government, but not all in the State Department," Lamphere said. "The problem was that McCarthy lied about his information and figures. He made charges against people that weren't true. McCarthyism harmed the counterintelligence effort against the Soviet threat because of the revulsion it caused. All along, Hoover was helping him."

On 9th February, 1950, Joseph McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin, made a speech claiming to have a list of 205 people in the State Department known to be members of the American Communist Party. The list of names was not a secret and had been in fact published by the Secretary of State in 1946. These people had been identified during a preliminary screening of 3,000 federal employees. Some had been communists but others had been fascists, alcoholics and sexual deviants. If screened, McCarthy's own drink problems and sexual preferences would have resulted in him being put on the list.

For some time opponents of Joseph McCarthy had been accumulating evidence concerning his homosexual activities. Several members of his staff, including Roy Cohn and David Schine, were also suspected of having a sexual relationship. Although well-known by political journalists, the first article about it did not appear until Hank Greenspun published an article in the Las Vagas Sun in 25th October, 1952. Greenspun wrote that: "It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often engaged in homosexual activities."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm

But this isn't really about McCarthy is it? It's really about Ann Coulter and John Locke's attempt to equate contemporary liberalism with communism. Coulter writes a screed glorifying McCarthy and Locke parrots it. But one must seriously question Coulter's record as a journalist, a historian and as an admitted polemicist who is far more interested in stirring controversy than furthering the pursuit of truth.

We can certainly stipulate that Soviet agents who worked covertly inside the United States government did commit treason. But Coulter broadens the term to include virtually every liberal, leftist, Democrat or member of the media, in each case obscuring distinctions between individuals and stereotyping the entire group.

To do this, she condemns the left and liberals for defending the proven (and alleged) Soviet spies at the time and the Democratic Party officials for not taking the threat seriously enough. Many have offered serious critiques of the actions of individuals in this era. But Coulter implies that nearly every person left of center is culpable for failing to take action to prevent a small group of Soviet agents and their willful collaborators from infiltrating the US government (a conclusion based in part on evidence that did not come out for years, including decrypted Soviet cables released in 1995). She frequently implies that liberal attacks on Senator Joseph McCarthy and the alleged hysteria of McCarthyism were nothing more than an attempt to cover up this widespread treachery:

Springing naturally to their traitorous positions, the adversary press vilified HUAC [the House Un-American Activities Committee] for persecuting the charming State Department official. [Alger Hiss] (p. 20)

By screaming about "McCarthyism," liberals would force the nation to "move on" from the subject of their own treachery. (p. 30)

McCarthy's fundamental thesis was absolutely correct: The Democratic Party had fallen to the allures of totalitarianism. It was as if the Republicans had been caught in bed with Hitler. (p. 71)

Stalinist spies were passing secret government files to Soviet agents, and the Treason Party sprang to action by vigorously investigating the precise words McCarthy had used in a speech to a women's Republican club in West Virginia. (p. 103)

The primary victim of outrageous persecution during the McCarthy era was McCarthy. Liberals hid their traitorous conduct by making McCarthy the issue. They did to McCarthy everything they falsely accused him of doing to them. (p. 104)

Adding insult to injury, Nixon had the audacity to make a campaign issue of the Democrats' treasonous stupidity. (p. 196)

In the above quotes, the press is labeled as "traitorous" for treating HUAC unfairly, the Democrats are called the "Treason Party" and their alleged stupidity (which does not imply malevolent intent) is condemned as "treasonous." These cartoonish ad hominem attacks obscure key distinctions between individuals, particularly with regard to their involvement in these debates and the differences in motives that guided their actions. Put simply, being wrong about the scope and severity of the Soviet threat does not make one a traitor.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

"I am a polemicist. I am perfectly frank about that. I like to stir up the pot. I don't pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do."
--- Ann Coulter

Those whom are inclined to believe McCarthy was something more than a vicious, venal little thug are welcome to do so. However by building the foundation of their case on the works of Ann Coulter they are building upon shifting and unstable sand.

Wasn't Hiss convicted of perjury after being "gotten" by Richard Nixon as part of the HUAC investigation? Is this McCarthyism because a suspected spy was allegedly caught passing information to the Soviets near the same time frame that McCarthy began pointing communist accusations randomly around Washington D.C.?

Does anyone have any evidence that McCarthy caught any Communists who were proven to be engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union? I have not yet found any.

While still doing some research and enjoying the energy of this topic I can’t help but notice the adjectives about certain sources or the man of the thread. I ask what is really to be gained by expressing opinions on if McCarthy was right or correct in his allegations by calling him a thug. Then there is calling Anne a blond bimbo. Perhaps someone here can explain to me how attacking the character of a source of information or the character of McCarthy adds credibility to the argument of if he really was right?

Regardless of how each person views the character of the source, I would think our efforts would be better spent refuting their arguments as to simply implying that they have made mistakes in other areas so they must not be right here. Biased Character descriptions do little to persuade others (like myself) on the right or wrongness of his accusations.

That whole era was called the McCarthy Era I imagine due to his famous public speech in Feb. 9th 1950 in which he said: "I have in my hand a list of 205 cases of individuals who appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party." Some days later, Feb 20, 1950 he made his 6 hour Senate floor speech saying that he NOW had EVIDENCE of 81 people working in the state dept., in which it is much later confirmed (through released Soviet documents) that there were indeed spies working in the US govt.

Prior to these famous speechs, the HUAC hearing were already in progress. This was 1947. McCarthy was not involved in these hearings.
It was Ayn Rand, at these hearings, who first raised the allegation that the 1944 film, "song of Russia," being "pro-communist." It was as a result of these first hearings that the "Hollywood 10" were accused sent to prison for contempt of court.
1951 the second round of HUAC begins with McCarthy, this time, participating. the continue on for 3 years.

it isn't until McCarthy goes up against the Army (1954) with accusations...which are later dispelled, that the term "McCarthism" is born.



Nixon testified against Hiss at Hiss's trial. The investigation of Hiss was prompted by McCarthy.

I have not seen anything to support the claim that Nixon was a witness against Nixon. The HUAC driven trials against Hiss, as far as I can tell, had nothing to do with McCarthy or the McCarthy hearings.

For example hear is a link to a comprehensive site about Hiss (very informative btw although it concludes that Hiss was right) And the only connection I could find to McCarthy was this news item



Phaedrus


Actually under the 1940 Smith Act and the 1950 McCarran Act (and implicitly under the Taft-Hartley Act) Communism was interpreted as being illegal. It became illegal to advocate the overthrow of the US government or belong to an organization that did so.

Link




JL

McCarthy was not the only person of his day that felt there were spies among us. However was he right? Or did he use publicity as a political weapon, and anti-communism to further his political career, while indiscriminately spouting accusations, many of which he knew to be untrue?

This link is an analytical assessment of McCarthy's accuracy and argues that McCarthy made claims that he could not prove against many individuals.
Link

I would point out to you Regent this excerpt from the Survival Guide portion of the board:

Only members can be personally attacked. Short of libel, public figures are fair game.

This is why I can call Ms. Coulter a "blonde bimbo" and Mr. McCarthy a "scumbag."
This is also why those whom feel differently can disagree and characterize Coulter as a reliable and unbiased author and journalist and McCartney as a crusading hero.

I tend to strongly disagree with either characterization, but reaching a consensus is not the whole point of debate. Maintaining civility and decorum is paramount in debate, but a debate is not a tea party. It's not always about whether others are persuaded to the rightness or wrongness of the argument being advanced. It's more important to this discourse whether or not it stimulates, perpetuates and advances the debate.

One person's "biased character description" is another person's dead on-point characterization. It's just an opinion and ultimately only worth exactly what you paid for it.

Boy oh boy, where to start?

First let me address those of you that have stooped so low as to repeat liberal rhetoric about Senator McCarthy and his so-called alcoholism.

Joe McCarthy was not an alcoholic by any means. You may think you can side track this debate by making me defend Joe McCarthy in his life, but let me tell you another offense that liberals accused Joe McCarthy of. Joe McCarthy was accused of being a homosexual by the Liberal Left and furthermore they claimed that that he also had a love/lust complex with his dead brother. It was actually their legal defense when he started his inquiries . Talk about ridiculous. They claimed in court that McCarthy was so distraught over his brother's death (of course because he was having a homosexual relationship with him) that it lead him to intense "paranoia and peculiar irrationality" . These are the people your siding up with???

In point of fact let us see just how other Democrats (not the slanderous ones) felt about him.

One week before his censure by a one sided committee of Liberals Bobby Kennedy made Joe the godfather to his first child born July Fourth 1951. This was 17 months after the famous Wheeling VA speech so that would be well into the "red scare" .

Furthermore, when John F. Kennedy responded on the issue of Joe McCarthy being coupled with the name Alger Hiss, Kennedy said "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor". Of course the "great American patriot" Jack was speaking of was Joe McCarthy and not Hiss.

Next I'll just comment for a moment on the previous quotings of a bunch of people here. I don't care what you quote about who said bad things about McCarthy. He was right. There were paid Soviet operatives in the Presidential Administrations of Liberals (who are nothing like Kennedy Democrats, save Teddy, Glugg Glugg, girlfriend murderer) and though McCarthy wasn't given a fair shot by Liberals to fully prosecute them, the Venona Tapes, the Pumpkin Papers and admissions of Ex-soviets, along with other intercepted cables prove that today. So sad it took the Liberals too long to figure it out. Luckily we had great leaders like Jack Kennedy, Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to offset administrations that were soft on espionage

Here, take this for example. I.F. Stone, one of McCarthy's "victims" I.F. Stone was hailed as a great journalist by the left (infact he was hailed as THE Journalist) for whom he would rather stay on Earth than go to Heaven, because he's got to keep things honest down here.

A few years later he was identified as a Soviet Spy and he is quoted on cables as saying that he'd like to accept money but couldn't because he "did not want to attract the attention of the FBI". Some patriot and hero for honest citizens .

Or what about Judith Coplon. She's the Bill Clinton of the "red scare". She was caught on her way to a meeting with a Soviet spy carrying classified documents about wire taps and surveilance of Soviets. When arrested she claimed that she was merely on the way to have sex with the man . So then in order to prove she wasn't, the Senate Committee was forced to prove that a week earlier she was having sex with someone else in a motel. The Liberals then tried to say that the Republicans were only interested in the sex lives of these spies, sound familiar? Of course it does! She made the issue about sex and then turned it around on the Republicans just like Bill Clinton did right in front of our faces. Sex wasn't the point of Clinton's mess. His lies, perjury, obstruction of justice and orders to obstruct justice to his subordinates were. The constitution is here to pretcet the innocent. Not those that can make the case about other things, or lie well enough to the public.

Hence McCarthy was more than accurate in his accusal of the 57, he was morally right as well to do so. And to note, McCarthy only ever claimed to have 57 people under suspicion. Liberals re-write a different story, but then again who trusts a Liberal?

JL you are continuing to argue things in hard language without backing them up by hard facts.
Do the

QUOTE

Venona Tapes, the Pumpkin Papers and admissions of Ex-soviets, along with other intercepted cables

prove that McCarthy was right about his specific allegations? Was he really not given enough latitude to explore his allegations? I mean he was even allowed to open public hearings on the army.

Is there proof that I.F. Stone was a spy? (source please)and does that relate to this thread?

As to McCarthy's alcohol abuse I have seen that from multiple sources including video interviews, books, and web pages.

here are a couple of inks in that regard
CNN
History Channel
MindAtlas
Wikipedia

the last link has some evidence that supports the claim that at least some of the people McCarthy identified were communist agents who gave material to the Soviet Union.



For those researching this question and still making up their mind, the wikipedia source is the best I have found since this thread was opened.

I do not see evidence to support that he was right. I see evidence to support the fact that he exploited the fear in America (a genuine one too) to become temporarily one of the most powerful men in America. But his sloppy tactics (take a cue here) led to the loss of his credibility and his political demise. That demise was his doing, not some communist plot put through by the democratic party acting as agents of the Kremlin.

Yeah, where do we start?

It's hard to find the points worthy of debate within that bile-filled diatribe against "Liberals," John Locke, and I'm 99 percent sure you won't bother to read this before you react, but I'm going to give you that remaining 1 percent of the doubt.

A few facts. Naughty little things, but facts are persistent buggers.

1. McCarthy WAS an alcoholic.

2. Roy Cohn and David Schine were prominent members of McCarthy's investigative team and they were lovers. Cohn tried to use McCarthy's power to keep Schine out of the military. There have been unsubstantiated allegations that McCarthy was a homosexual as well. I don't know if he was or was not and don't really care. However, if McCarthy was that might have explained why he and J. Edgar Hoover got along so well.

3. It wasn't a "one-sided committee of Liberals" that censured McCarthy. It was the entire U.S. Senate that did so by a vote of 67-22. One of the leading opponents of McCarthy's bullying tactics was Senator Prescott Bush, father of George H.W. and grandfather of George W.

Please tell me JL, how is it you point out that liberal Democrats like Bobby Kennedy supposedly made McCarthy the godfather to his first child and John Kennedy supposedly said McCarthy was a "great American patriot" but you don't provide any links, any direct quotations, any attribution or anything besides your say-so that any of this even occurred?

I don't care what you quote about who said bad things about McCarthy.

Sooooooooo...why should anyone care about who you quote that supposedly said good things about McCarthy?

Nighttimer,

I sure am glad I went on to read your post before I responded. Otherwise I might have been upstaged by your
witty cavalier post . Let's face some facts though.

This thread is about whether or not McCarthy was right. And as stated earlier, you aren't ignoring my evidence.
Your blatantly trying not to trip over the facts.

McCarthy was right. As proven by Soviet cables released by the government in the mid 1990's as well as a
slew of other info ie the Pumpkin papers and mentionable soviet cable intercepts on top of defector information and
admittance by the Soviets themselves..

Now for an address of your points.

1. McCarthy was an alcoholic.

Ridiculous nonsense for which you haven't named one source.

2. McCarthy and his staffers were gay.

These are the exact same allegations I just wrote about. You make me laugh. BTW what is wrong with being gay? And even if
he was, am I to believe that he because he was gay, he had a sexual affair with his brother and chased Communists because of
his death ??? It doesn't matter any way, that wouldn't mean he was wrong.

3. Censured 67-22, you are correct.

I can't find any evidence of GHW Bush's censure vote. That's not to say he didn't vote
for the censure, I just can't find it.

4. A question of my own trustworthy.

This wasn't a real point you just galavantly made me out to be a liar so in rebuttle, I did provide a direct quote of exactly what
Jack Kennedy said and under what context he said it in. Just read my post all the way through (for once). BTW if you want a source
for the Kennedy-McCarthy godfather story, please see: On Soviet Morality, TIME Magazine Febraury 16, 1981. Is that good enough
for you?

BTW would you care to even try and debate the real question without ignoring the truth? McCarthy was proven to be correct.

JL, I'm going to call you on this. Sorry.

1. In doing research for this post, I looked up every reference I could find with regard to McCarthy. It appears that it was well known that he was an alcoholic. Now, notice I said alcoholic. Not a drunk. It does not mean that he couldn't do his job. There are literally thousands of functioning alcoholics that lead relatively normal lives, outside the drinking.

Every source I found listed his death as either cirosis of the liver, or advanced, acute hepatitis, both related to long term, heavy drinking. The entire article is here.

2. While I did see an allegation of his being a homosexual, I also saw allegations that he liked to chase younger (18 - 20 year old) women, so I'll leave that one alone. However, I found no allegations whatsoever, that he was accused of relations with his brother. Not one. I have no idea where you came up with this one.

3. I found the references to his connection to the Kennedy's. No problem.

4. Here's the one I have a problem with, JL....

What a complete distortion of what facts I could find on the subject. You make this sound like she got off on the charges due to her assertions that her being with Gubitchev was only about sex. She didn't get off. She was convicted of espionage (and rightly so, I might add. She was spying). But her convictions were reversed on appeal because the evidence had been obtained through illegal wiretaps, warrantless searches, and perjured testimony. If the government had done it the right way, she'd have been executed long ago, instead of living in quiet retirement. The complete story can be found here.

And that's the real point of the McCarthy story. It's not that he wasn't proven right in a lot of his accusations, because he was. But he was wrong in a lot more. He used intimidation, smear tactics, and guilt by association to further his aims. He was a bully, and a grandstander. He had no compunction to calling someone a spy, whether they were or weren't, if they could not produce additional names for him to accuse. That's the part of this that I have a problem with. Smearing people's reputations without evidence and proclaiming others guilty just because they knew, or worked with a communist (even if they didn't know that person was a communist) was what did McCarthy in, in the long run. What you don't want to seem to acknowledge are the large number of people that McCarthy was wrong about, only the ones he was right about.

You're right about one thing. The constitution is supposed to protect the innocent.
From government abuse, like using coerced or perjured testimony to convict people. Like preventing warrantless searches, illegal searches and wiretaps, to make a case against someone. Even against those that may be guilty as sin. Unless you have a problem with those constitutional protections?

Niteguy.

Finally someone (besides me) admits he was right!

Communists were infiltrating the governement in an attempt to fell America and bring her to her knees. The Soviets were inherently trying to bring the horrible totalitarianism to America that kept most of Asia and Europe starving for fifty years and was responsible for the deaths of scores of millions of people. If you want to know what a real false trial with conspiracies and torture looked like you should read into Stalins Trials that he held on his supposed defectors. Maybe that'll be enough for you to realize the true horror of what went on in the Cold War. McCarthyism or Stalinism? Which would you rather have lived under? Thanks to Joe McCarthy and other anti-Communists you get to live in the prosperous America rather than the People's Republic of America.

It should now be pointed out that the reason McCarthy had to even have these hearings and get illegal wiretaps etc. was because Liberals in America (especially in the Presidential Administrations of Liberals who also directed the FBI) were soft on Communism. Had these Liberals given the matter over to a legal investigation than any innocents would have been cleared and the government on it's way to catch the real spies. Which was McCarthy's point from the get-go! Which was why he refused to name names (until forced to by the Liberal Senators in a funny event of circumstances) even after he specifically told these Senators that it was likely that if he could investigate these people properly, there were several people who would likely be cleared as innocent.

So as I said before, the Liberals themselves by halting the legal investigations brought on necessary illegal invesitgations, lest America fall to Mother Russia!

The Liberals should have just given consent to run these investigations to protect the country, but they were busy playing power politics and admiring "Uncle Joe" and other murderers, sound familiar (Iraq)???

So now we see that yes McCarthy was right... and that "McCarthyism" was caused by Liberal refusal to investigate properly!

No, JL, sorry. Two wrongs don't make a right. The FBI, under Hoover, who was hardly liberal, were the ones feeding McCarthy with a lot of his names. People who weren't necessarily traitors, and in most cases not even communists. Just people that for one reason or another that Hoover didn't like, or was suspicious of.

And that still doesn't mitigate what the two of them were doing. They were committing crimes themselves to implicate people in other crimes. And when they couldn't get honest evidence, they manufactured it, or merely smeared people in inuendo. That's not honest, legal investigation, it's criminal behavior. You certainly wouldn't stand for it if it happened to you, now, and the courts and the Senate were right to stop him then.

Again, not because of the ones he got right, but for the many more he got wrong. And it seems that I'm stil living in the prosperous US of A, instead of the People's Republic of America. Because the Constitution, and the rule of law worked. We didn't succumb to the smears and the inuendo, and the illegal searches, which is how things work over there, remember?

Niteguy,

You're right. Two wrongs don't make a right. However the threat of Communism ruling in America, does.

We can pretend that all was well and Joe Stalin and Kruchev wouldn't have wanted to force the US to succomb to its' own totalitarianism, but I don't dream that way. I know the threat of Communism and I know it wasn't false. The Soviet cables and defectors prove that themselves.

That is all well and beyond the point, which is.... Joe McCarthy was right, as in he was correct. There were spies in the State Department

I have proof of him being wrong. I can prove it with one name: George Marshall, the architect of the Marshall Plan. McCarthy accused George Marshall of being a communist. George Marshall's plan to send aid to Europe after the war may have stopped the spread of communism in europe because of the massive toll of destruction from WWII.

McCarthy was a paranoid nut. He is a sad person of our history.

GoAmerica,

Actually George Marshall's plan and The Marshall Plan we ended up with are two very different things. Originally Marshall's plan included giving millions of dollars to the Soviets in aide and giving millions of dollars to the Maoists in aide who America was already decidedly against. His plan wasn't patriotic or good for America. George Marshall may not have been a Soviet spy but the Marshall Plan (originally) was a very bad idea. The Senate got a hold of it and re-worked it thanks to people like McCarthy and GHW Bush. Other than the other than the name, The Marshall Plan has no resemblence to Marshall or his ideologies.

As I stated earlier. McCarthy knew that not every name and lead he had was correct, but couldn't start disqualifying people as defectors, because the senate wouldn't let him have his investigation. However he was correct about many people within the State Department that were spies giving espionage secrets to the Soviets! So he was right! I have previously in this thread listed the names of people proven to be spies, as well as other people involved in this thread.

Joe McCarthy was right!

Nighttimer:


Thanks for pointing out that tip. I shall simply refer you to the section of the guide on logical fallacies. While it is your right to post such an opinion, the logical fallacy “Changing the Subject” with the emphasis on “Attacking the Person” (in this case the personal attack on the source of information) does not enhance the debate, but rather detracts from the points being discussed.

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php

While I respect the fact that it is an opinion and one that was not paid for, my comments regarding the unnecessary use of such comments is also my opinion.



I think an interesting argument that has been used in some of the links and quotes here is the logic that McCarthy could not have really known about these people because he was not involved with the VENONA project. The implication being that the information was classified and he was not privy to it.

I think excellent points have been made with the connection of Hoover to McCarthy. From what I have found Hoover was very aware of the information coming out of the transcripts decoded by the VENONA project. My understanding of Hoover was that he was very against any criminal activity. If these two were good friends then I would think many conversations took place as to who was involved.

I think the evidence that was used by McCarthy was very weak, but then politics is very much about spin. I have seen many different explanations in the links provided for the difference in the numbers game, but I think the link below gives a pretty fair assessment of the discrepancies.

http://www.crimsonbird.com/history/mccarthy.htm



I think that both sides of the argument can draw points here. The first being that the evidence was really not provided with the accusations. This is unfair and McCarthy should have been yanked onto the carpet to provide proof or drop the allegations.

The other point is the sensitivity of the VENONA project. If Hoover had been providing McCarthy with names, the evidence may not have been able to be provided due to secret nature. The last thing the US would have wanted to USSR to know is how thoroughly the code had been cracked. The argument can be made that there was evidence, but that it could not be revealed. If this were the case how could the US eliminate the threat of Spies in the government without revealing to the Soviets how they had discovered this information?
There does appear to be evidence that some of his accusations were correct, hence you could argue that he was right. Evidence also suggests that there were cases where he was wrong, hence you could argue that he was incorrect.

There seems to be overwhelming evidence that he enjoyed being in the spot light and that he liked the attention. Many of the links already provided allude to this, but if need be can provide additional.

He was very charismatic and often would spin things one way or the other. Point me to a politician who does not do this. I would argue that much of the hatred and fear that was generated was due to the manner of how he handled the issues rather than the actual accusations. It is true though that Truman was also aware of the problems and there were efforts in addition to McCarthy to rid the government of those who were Communists.
The Smith Act trials of 1949 were largely instigated by Hoover and Truman.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l...me/smithact.htm

The ironic piece to this particular effort was that the Democratic Party used this as a political weapon against the Republican criticism of their being soft on communism. A few years later the Republican Party used McCarthy and this precedent to act as a big stick to hit the Democrats with. The next election proved to be very beneficial to the Republican cause.

My conclusion is that McCarthy was right in some of his allegations. Other allegations could have been politically based to remove opponents of the Republican Party. This is not much different than allegations that go on now. They were unfounded, but caused voters to shy away from their previous support. I think it is possible he was played by some behind the scenes to get rid of some of the spies with out the revelation of classified materials. His manner was brutal, thus making him the perfect person to push an agenda that others hoped would move forward.

[quote=johnlocke,Nov 16 2003, 10:37 PM] 1. McCarthy was an alcoholic.

Ridiculous nonsense for which you haven't named one source.

2. McCarthy and his staffers were gay.

These are the exact same allegations I just wrote about. You make me laugh. BTW what is wrong with being gay? And even if
he was, am I to believe that he because he was gay, he had a sexual affair with his brother and chased Communists because of
his death ??? It doesn't matter any way, that wouldn't mean he was wrong.

3. Censured 67-22, you are correct.

I can't find any evidence of GHW Bush's censure vote. That's not to say he didn't vote
for the censure, I just can't find it.

4. A question of my own trustworthy.

This wasn't a real point you just galavantly made me out to be a liar so in rebuttle, I did provide a direct quote of exactly what
Jack Kennedy said and under what context he said it in. Just read my post all the way through (for once). BTW if you want a source
for the Kennedy-McCarthy godfather story, please see: On Soviet Morality, TIME Magazine Febraury 16, 1981. Is that good enough
for you?

BTW would you care to even try and debate the real question without ignoring the truth? McCarthy was proven to be correct. [/quote]
QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Thanks Regent.

Now to your points JohnLocke.

1. McCarthy was an alcoholic. "Ridiculous nonsense" you said.

McCarthy, who had been drinking heavily for many years, was discovered to have cirrhosis of the liver. An alcoholic, he was unable to take the advice of doctors and friends to stop drinking. Joseph McCarthy died in the Bethesda Naval Hospital on 2nd May, 1957. As the newspapers reported, McCarthy had drunk himself to death.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthy.htm

2. McCarthy and his staffers were gay. "What is wrong with being gay?" you said.

There's nothing wrong with being gay. What is wrong is when you ARE gay and you use your position and authority to harass, ruin and destroy the lives of OTHER people and one tactic is to threaten to "out" them as homosexuals. That was a tactic employed by McCarthy, Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover. Cohn and Hoover both denied they were gay though no one but their most myopic defenders could argue the truth of the matter. I said before I do not know if McCarthy was gay, but where that wild story about having sex with his own brother came from I can't say. It sure didn't come from me.

3. Please reread my post regarding the censure of McCarthy. I said it was Sen. Prescott Bush who was one of the Republicans leading the fight against McCarthy.
George Herbert Walker Bush was not a member of the Senate, but was twice elected to the House of Representatives. Prescott Bush was GHW Bush's dad and the grandfather of George W. Bush.

4. I did read your quote of John Kennedy praising McCarthy. However, though you set the quote off with quotation marks, you didn't provide an attribution for Kennedy's remarks and provided your own interpretation about whom Kennedy was praising as a patriot and condemning as a traitor. Very confusing.

However, you are right that Kennedy was supportive of McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy served on McCarthy's committee for a time. But there is much more to the Kennedy/McCarthy relationship than meets the eye.

He was not as sensitive as liberal Democrats wished, however, to the demagogic excesses of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, who in the early 1950s conducted witch-hunting campaigns against government workers accused of being Communists. John's father, Joseph Kennedy, liked McCarthy; he contributed to his campaign and even entertained him in the family's compound at Hyannis Port on Cape Cod in Massachusetts. John disapproved of McCarthy, but as he once observed, "Half my people in Massachusetts look on McCarthy as a hero." Yet on the Senate vote over condemnation of McCarthy's conduct (1954), Kennedy expected to vote against him. He prepared a speech explaining why, but he was absent on the day of the vote. Later, at a National Press Club Gridiron dinner, costumed reporters sang, "Where were you, John, where were you, John, when the Senate censured Joe?" Actually, John had been in a hospital, in critical condition after back surgery.

http://search.eb.com/elections/micro/317/63.html

One of Kennedy's many biographers speculate that Kennedy ducked out on the censure vote as not to have taken a public stand against McCarthy. The biographer speculates this failure of character on Kennedy's part prompted him to write Profiles In Courage to make amends for his own lack of the same.

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.

Nighttimer,

Yes we discussed that he did have an alcohol problem I concede that point and didn't know it previously but it wouldn't hurt in fact to have included your references before hand .

Prescott Bush, I'm sorry I wrote in the wrong name. As I tried to state previously I couldn't find evidence of Prescott Bush's vote one way or the other. Again I don't deny it, but I haven't been able to prove it. Can you provide alink or an article where I can get that info, for myown curiosity?

No he wasn't a homosexual and I'm tired of hearing it, we all here (save you) seem to have established that he wasn't chasing men because he was busy chasing young women around. However you can make whatever claims you want. To everyone else here it's quite clear that Cohn was a homosexual and had a thing for another staffer and did try and use his own pull to get things done behind closed doors with another man, whatever this has to do with McCarthy, I'm not squarley sure. I am certain that you have used both this matter and his alcoholism to stifle this debate and you have succeeded moderately.

So back to the issue. McCarthy claimed there were Communists in the state Department. HE WAS RIGHT!!!

What more can anyone say?

McCarthy was right!

There were spies in the State Department. You might not like his tactics, but I don't like yours either. All are irrelevant!

McCarthy was correct!

JL,

Just one thing to remember. McCarthy may have been right, but so could anyone else be, who made that accusation, even today. There will always unfortunately, be those who, for what ever reason (money, the feeling of power, the feeling they are balancing power) trade military and government secrets. Maybe not exclusively to "communists", but to the Russians, the Saudis, the Syrians.

But it's not going to be the allegations that count. It's going to be able to make the cases without breaking the law, so that we can put these people away.

NiteGuy,

It's obviously not my contention to support breaking the Constitution for any reason.

It is my contention however, that had the Liberals let an impartial investigation occur, feedoms would not have been violated, innocent men's names would've been cleared and the guilty party's sought out and convicted. That's not what happened though and McCarthy had to go it alone.

Had he not done what he did, other President's Adminstrations may have been chalk full of more and more Communists until the eventual plunder and defeat of capitalist Ameriaca as you and I know it. One thing we do know, that was their goal!

So back to the reality of the issue, so what? This may come as a shock but there have been Communist mayors and goveners elected to office in this country. Being a communist does not make you a traitor to the United States, even though it could be a mistake. I'm still wondering what it is that 160 people did so wrong that they deserved to be publicly ridiculed?

My point is this, America will allways have enemies. But simply being a communist is not treason. Also, treators are shot (hung, electrocuted...etc) not fired. They are certainly not reinstated like the ones falsely accused during the red scare. Maybe you would like to consider how the whole thing got shut down by the Whitehouse by telling the Army to ignore the whole mess. Was Eisenhower a communist? Because he did more to stop your hero from conducting these hearings then anyone else.

McCarthy was wrong and a disgrace to the Senate. He abandoned due process and was rightfully censored by the Senate, which BTW, only happened three times previously. I cannot imagine how this guy could be mistaken as a hero unless Cotton Matters could be considered a hero because he may have actually hung a witch. Because it was the same thing.

Hellooo. Is anybody listening? How many times do I have to repeat this? It may in my opinion be a disgusting thought to be a Communist, but I never said it should be illegal. No one in here (to my recollection) believes that being a Communist is or was a crime. Maybe a terrible alignment of morals, but not illegal. My contention is that there were Communists in the State Department handing over secrets to the Soviets! That is what this thread is about and Joe McCarthy was proven to be absolutely dead on correct about many of the people that were on his list.



You are wrong Cotton Matters never had an actual witch (as far as I know), but McCarthy actually accused people who were selling secrets to the Soviets. They are two completely different things. If you had read what I have been posting you would have seen that McCarthy didn't want to "name names" and you would also have read that
McCarthy was right as proven by (for the sixth or seventh time now) the Pumpkin papers, the Venona tapes, Soviet cables intercepted by the military and FBI and the confessions of ex-Soviets, not to mention other Soviets that later publicly thanked people like the Rosenburgs for their hard work in attempting to over come the US government.

What more does it take???





edited for spelling.