What Bill O'Reilly Should Have Told Ann Coulter





Mr. Fuentez is a Ph.D. candidate, American History, University of Pennsylvania.

Find the lowest price on Books and Textbooks. Use the Internet's fastest price comparison search engine http://www.hnn.directtextbook.com. Check the price of your next book purchase at over 10,000 bookstores at http://www.hnn.directtextbook.com

It used to be taken for granted that Senator Joseph R. McCarthy is one of the great villains of American history. His crime always has been assumed to be his introduction into American politics of the practice of "McCarthyism" in the midst of the campaign of the late forties and early fifties to root out the influence of the Communist Party in American institutions. Though a complex phenomenon, the central feature of McCarthyism was a rhetorical style that entailed false or unsubstantiated accusations or insinuations of Communism. In part, McCarthyism was reprehensible because it tended to unjustifiably harm the lives of innocent individuals, exposing them to social and professional ostracism, causing them emotional distress, and in some cases costing them their jobs or political careers. More broadly, it served to chill free expression, for many people shied away from discussing controversial ideas or embracing controversial political causes for fear of being called Communists.

Even historians who in recent years with the opening of Soviet archives have been justifying many aspects of the mid-century anti-communist campaign remain convinced that McCarthy was an extremist who actually hurt the legitimate goals of the anti-communist cause. But there is a new, powerful, conservative voice reaching millions who is striving to undermine this consensus and create an alternative image of McCarthy as a great American hero.

This voice belongs to Ann Coulter. In her new best-selling book Treason, Coulter uses a reappraisal of McCarthy as a unifying thread to her overarching argument that it is really liberals since the Roosevelt administration who deserve the reputation of villains. Coulter argues that liberals continually have sought to undermine the country as it has faced mortal challenges ranging from Communism to terrorism. Their most potent weapon of treachery has been to invoke the charge of "McCarthyism" against true American patriots, i.e. conservatives, who have attempted to expose liberals for their treasonous political positions. To insure that liberals never again gain control of the White House and the fate of the country, Coulter believes it is first necessary to neutralize this weapon by rehabilitating the reputation of McCarthy, particularly by disassociating him with "the myth of 'McCarthyism'...the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times."

Whatever the merits of her overarching argument that liberals have been betraying their country for the last several decades, it is Coulter's reappraisal of McCarthy that initially piqued my personal interest because I am a historian of the mid-century "red scare." But I was moved to write this essay after watching Coulter's appearance on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" on July 22, 2003. Even the show’s strongly opinionated, right-leaning host Bill O'Reillywas taken aback by Coulter's attempt to glorify McCarthy. During their exchange of views, Coulter challenged O'Reilly to name just one individual falsely accused by McCarthy of being a Communist. O'Reilly named the screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted by Hollywood studios after an appearance before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Smirking at the thought of her own rebuttal, Coulter sarcastically noted that HUAC was a committee of the House and McCarthy was a member of the Senate, so McCarthy obviously had nothing to do with Trumbo.

O'Reilly's blunder reveals the problem with history that is taken for granted: even the most well-educated citizens can forget the most basic historical facts. So for the sake of historical truth, it seems necessary to counter Coulter's propaganda effort regarding McCarthy by reminding most reasonable and fair-minded Americans what he represented. But first, Coulter's specific argument regarding McCarthy should be explained.

By virtue of her own arguments on other subjects, Coulter must believe that McCarthyism, as I and McCarthy’s own contemporaries defined it, is an abomination. Her previous book Slander was in part a condemnation of a rhetorical style similar to McCarthyism and practiced nowadays mainly by liberals. This contemporary rhetorical style is widely known as "political correctness," which involves false or unsubstantiated accusations or insinuations of racism, sexism, or any other kind of bigotry. Coulter bemoaned the prevalence of political correctness for two reasons. For one, it makes a serious discussion of important issues next to impossible "...because one side is making arguments and the other side is throwing eggs...." Secondly, it chills free expression, for "...it is surely true that if holding political opinions can itself be scandalous, fewer people are going to want to have any of those opinion things." Since Coulter reviles political correctness, it logically follows that she cannot reasonably defend its stylistic cousin McCarthyism.

But here is the twist to Coulter's reappraisal of McCarthy: he never practiced McCarthyism. In other words, even if there were some individuals who uttered the kind of slander that came to be known as McCarthyism, McCarthy himself never engaged in it because he rarely directly called anyone a "Communist" and when he did, well, they actually were Communists. In short, Coulter argues that "[e]verything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie."

Now for the historical truth. McCarthy did in fact make many false or unsubstantiated accusations or insinuations of Communism, even though Coulter denies it and O'Reilly could not remember one. He did so the very first moment he became a figure of public notoriety in the mid-century anti-communist campaign. In a Lincoln Day speech to the Ohio County Women's Republican Club in Wheeling, West Virginia on February 9, 1950, he declared that there were 57 Communists working in the State Department. The next day, he reiterated his charge by declaring that there were 57 "card-carrying members of the Communist Party" in the State Department. Later on, in a speech to the Senate and before a Senate committee hastily organized to review his charges, this number would grow larger. But when he detailed his accusations against specific individuals, like Dorothy Kenyon, Haldore Hanson, Philip Jessup, Frederick Schuman, Harlow Shapley, and John Stewart Service, he could not substantiate a single one of them. Reading from the government case files of these individuals, he could only point out their membership in organizations that may or may not have had other members who were Communists. But "guilt by association" was not a standard then that confirmed that someone was a Communist anymore than it proves today that someone is a bigot just because he or she has come into contact with someone who is. So weak were his charges that in one case he could only say: “…there is nothing in his files to disprove his Communist connections.”

Soon after his failure to substantiate his accusations against 57-plus State Department employees, McCarthy accused Owen Lattimore, an expert on the Far East, of being the "top Russian spy" in the United States and "the boss of Alger Hiss" (Hiss was a former State Department official well-known at the time for being accused of being a Communist and a Soviet spy). He also claimed that with regards to his earlier charge of a Communist infiltration of the State Department he would "stand or fall" on the basis of his accusation against Lattimore. In the forties, Lattimore had drawn the attention of many conservatives for his sober assessment of the pre-Communist China situation, which included criticism of Chiang Kai-Shek and an honest assessment of the strength of Communist forces. For this conservative heresy, Lattimore was reviled by many conservatives and eventually smeared by McCarthy. But McCarthy never offered any credible evidence to support his accusation that Lattimore was a Communist who led an espionage ring for the Soviet Union other than the testimony of an ex-Communist named Louis Budenz who himself had never met Lattimore and offered only hearsay.

Another of McCarthy's early false or unsubstantiated accusations of Communism was the one he made against journalist Drew Pearson. Though McCarthy and Pearson were initially friendly with one another when McCarthy first arrived in Washington, D.C., they had a falling out, mainly over McCarthy’s initial accusations of Communism, and they became involved in a bitter feud that one night erupted into a physical altercation. To get back at Pearson, McCarthy gave a Senate speech in which he called upon Americans to pressure the corporate sponsors of Pearson's radio news show to drop Pearson because of his supposed politics. Even though McCarthy made it clear that he was not accusing Pearson of being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, he insisted that Pearson was a communist in principle because he consciously promoted and defended the interests of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union, primarily by criticizing anti-communists like himself. To quote McCarthy himself, he said Pearson was the "voice of international communism," the "sugar-coated voice of Russia," and a "Moscow-directed character assassin."

Despite the hollowness of his early accusations of Communism, McCarthy was able to intensify his pursuit of Communists when the Republican Party won control of the Senate in 1952 and he was awarded the chairmanship of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations. Armed with subpoena power, McCarthy called dozens of witnesses before his subcommittee. All of the witnesses who refused to cooperate with his subcommittee by pleading the Fifth Amendment he called Communists. To be precise, he did not call each individual witness a Communist, but rather he blanketly called them "Fifth Amendment Communists." Now some historians acknowledge that many witnesses called by congressional investigating committees during the mid-century red scare were at one time or another members of the Communist Party. But some of them never were members and most of them were former members who were unwilling to expose themselves to possible prosecution or to name the names of fellow members who they felt would be persecuted for what they considered mere political beliefs. Arguably McCarthy could have claimed that these individuals were bad citizens for refusing to cooperate with a legally constituted congressional investigating committee. But for McCarthy to label these individuals as present Communists simply because they pleaded the Fifth Amendment was an inference that lacked logical justification.

Besides direct accusations, McCarthy also made numerous insinuations of Communism that were tantamount to direct accusations. On more than one occasion he referred to Secretary of State Dean Acheson as "the Red Dean." During the 1952 Republican national convention, he purposely misspoke the name of Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson, calling him "Alger--I mean Adlai Stevenson." When he delivered public speeches, he frequently began by pointing out reporters in the audience and asserting that they worked for, for example, the Milwaukee Daily Worker (really the Milwaukee Journal) or the New York Daily Worker (really the New York Times). But perhaps his most controversial insinuation of Communism was the one he made against Secretary of Defense and former Secretary of State George Marshall. Believing that Marshall purposely worked to insure that China would fall to Communism, as it did in 1949, McCarthy claimed that Marshall was part of "...a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man."

Even Coulter believes that a false insinuation of ideological deviancy is morally equivalent to a direct accusation. In her book Slander, she equally condemned both. For example, she denounced a MSNBC reporter for remarking, "[i]t finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses." She criticized a former Democratic congresswoman for accusing some conservatives of "goose-stepping over women's rights." She was appalled by a Democratic congressman who said of Republicans: “These are people who are practicing genocide with a smile; they’re worse than Hitler.” She was outraged by references to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as "Adolph Giuliani." None of these speakers who Coulter condemns explicitly called anyone a "racist," "sexist," or any other kind of bigot, but they clearly insinuated as much. So if false insinuations of bigotry are to be condemned, so must false insinuations of Communism, which McCarthy frequently made.

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

Some of these facts about McCarthy Coulter simply ignores. As for some of these facts that she actually discusses, she lamely attempts to whitewash them. For example, in discussing the inaugural episode of McCarthy's red-hunting career, his speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, Coulter attempts to justify his charges against numerous State Department employees by claiming that McCarthy was merely suggesting that these individuals were at the very least security risks. McCarthy himself did say such a thing at a later date, but it is not what he initially said and not what most Americans were led to believe. McCarthy specifically called them Communists, and when called upon to substantiate his charges, he was unable to do so. Regarding Lattimore, Coulter explains that McCarthy's attack on him was mere "hyperbole," and in any case Lattimore “acted like a Soviet espionage agent." Again, McCarthy himself did not say what Coulter interprets. Moreover, by admitting that McCarthy's charge against Lattimore was hyperbole, she fails to grasp the obvious: hyperbole was the very essence of McCarthyism.

Besides reinterpreting McCarthy's own words, another method Coulter uses to whitewash the most damning facts about McCarthy is to argue either that evidence has emerged decades later proving his charges to be true or that if no evidence has yet emerged it still may at some future date. This argument is so Orwellian (to use a favorite adjective of Coulter's) that it deserves careful consideration. What Coulter is essentially saying is that even though McCarthy may have made charges initially without foundation, he should not be condemned because evidence emerged decades later that proved some of his charges to be true or, if it hasn’t yet, may still emerge to substantiate his remaining charges. To put this argument into perspective, what if a liberal claimed between 1974 and 2003, without any evidence whatsoever, that Richard Nixon personally ordered the Watergate break-in? Coulter, who reveres Nixon for his role in the Alger Hiss case and suggests that his life should be celebrated on the Fourth of July, surely would have considered such a claim just another liberal slander. And even though evidence recently emerged in late July 2003 in the form of testimony from Nixon aide Jeb Stuart Magruder, Coulter probably would stick to the position, as she should, that it is wrong to level a charge of wrongdoing based solely on the presumption that corroborating evidence will turn up at a later date. The same should hold true for McCarthy.

HNN FUND RAISING DRIVE
If you like the service HNN provides, please consider making a donation.

Hopefully, this brief history lesson is informative enough to repudiate Coulter's reappraisal of McCarthy. For McCarthy was truly a loathsome politician whose name has been associated deservedly with the phenomenon called McCarthyism. No amount of whitewashing and willful ignorance can change the central facts of this historical interpretation. And if Bill O'Reilly ever reads this article and has Coulter on his show again, he should be better prepared to debate her.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Paul Tschirgi - 5/9/2010

I wanted to add another analogy to the McCarthy / Richard nixon accusal, with later affirmation.

What if you have suspicions of a terrorist. Should you wait later for him to detonate a bomb for evidence against him, or make your accusation known earlier?


Trinadol Fahy - 12/27/2003

In Mein Kampf, Hitler excoriates the Freemasons as equally dangerous as Jews and the Catholic church. He states, "there is no place in the Third Reich for Freemasons." He fears and loathes them. Just thought I'd add that bit of info.


Jim Krause - 12/13/2003

Here's a good site that discusses McCarthy's repressed homosexual urges: http://www.geocities.com/realmccarthy/


Cyndy Budenz Salins - 12/4/2003

Sorry -it was Archbishop Sheen, not Cardinal Sheen (although most people thought he should have been named a cardinal!).


Cyndy Budenz Salins - 12/4/2003

As a niece of Louis Budenz, I can guarantee you he KNEW who was involved - and who wasn't!

It cost Uncle Louis a lot to embrace and, later, renounce communism. He not only lost his faith (Catholicism), he also lost the support of many family members.

Cardinal Sheen (whom I believe was a bishop at the time)is the priest who convinced Uncle Louis to come back to the Church. When he decided to convert back to the faith, that is when he testified to the HUAC.

Please set the record straight - he did not testify to anything he didn't know for a fact.


Mary Edwards - 11/8/2003

One of the more interesting aspects about Senator Joe McCarthy is whether McCarthy was in fact a closet Nazi. The following website discusses this subject: http://www.geocities.com/realmccarthy/


Jerry Pierce - 10/16/2003

Hello,
I realize that this comment is a bit late, but I didn't come across this thread until recently.
Considering the 'mission statement' of the HNN ("To point out bogus analogies. To deflate beguiling myths.") I too must deflate some myths about medieval heresy and violence, particularly that regarding Fra Dolcino in Italy in the early 14th century (which, I should point out, is the subject of my dissertation "Creating the Apocalyptic Community: Gerard Segarelli, Fra Dolcino and the Legitimization of Deviance Among the Order of Apostles, 1260-1307").
Leaving aside the major part of the debate regarding the spread of communism in the 19th and 20th centuries, I wish to take issue with the comment(s) made by F.H. Thomas regarding Fra Dolcino, the "penitentii" and violence.
First, I'd like to ask what source(s) the author used for the "information" about Dolcino and his activities? Since the execution of Dolcino in 1307, many so-called histories of the Order of Apostles (Apostolici, Apostolic Brethren...in this thread referred to as 'penitentii'), including the inquisitorial account penned by Bernard Gui around 1316, have obscurred the history of Dolcino and his order by falsely referencing their violence against the pious people of northern Italy. Though it is true that supporters of the Apostolici (and perhaps some members themselves) took up arms in their rebellion, it was NOT directed at the unsuspecting and innocent peasants (or the rich for that matter). Instead, the violence was between the Apostolici and successive crusading armies headed by the bishop of Vercelli and approved by the papacy. However, according to F.H. Thomas:
"Communism was not invented in the 19th century by Marx and Engels. One could better trace its precepts of violence and armed taking of property by an elite cadre, as well as its name, to the radical "penitentii" of the 12th and 13th centuries, in Northern Italy, who loved to murder and steal as a means of equalization in society, until they themselves were killed."
And from a follow-up post:
"Look up Fra Dolcino. His group killed around 20,000 up and down the Po valley, in the name of equality, before he and 5000 followers were themselves done in. He was only one of many. Although the links are a little stretched, at least one link to him goes back to the patron of poverty himself, Saint Frances of Assisi. The middle ages did more to make modern times than we sometimes give them credit for."
I don't take issue with the idea that communism originated prior to Marx and Engels. However, I do believe that the connection between violence and communism has been overstated, especially if Dolcino's group is being used as an example.
Instead of taking the inquisitorial documents at face value or any of the subsequent historical works (in English) which repeat the same errors (Gordon Leff, Marjorie Reeves, Malcolm Barber) some contextual analysis helps expose the biases and misrepresentation that originated with Gui's "On the Sect of the Pseudo-Apostles" and have been perpetuated ever since.
Let me briefly supply some facts that have been lacking in the scholarship and have been repeated recently in this forum by F.H. Thomas.
1. The Order of Apostles had a quite peaceful beginning in the city of Parma c. 1260 under Gerard Segarelli. He preached a message of poverty and penance that appealed to many, both men and women, as a means to free themselves from what they believed was an increasingly corrupt and materialistic world. Under Segarelli, the Order was very much a "communistic" group, as they collectively shared everything from clothes to food to shelter. All of this information can be found in the _Cronica_ of the Franciscan, Salimbene of Parma, who was a contemporary and bitter rival of Segarelli.
2. The Order (it was referred to as such by papal bulls) spread peacefully from Parma to northern Italy, and then beyond to France, Spain and Germany. Adherents, men and women, preached in a variety of locations, from roadsides, to piazzas, and even in episcopal cathedrals (which implies official sanction and acceptance).
3. After the second Council of Lyon in 1274, the Church tried to restrict the number of mendicant movements, including the Apostolici, by encouraging their memebrs to join established orders (such as the Franciscans and Dominicans). The Apostolici, among others, refused to disband, but no official action was taken, even after a later pope (Nicolaus IV) reissued the order to disband. However, the group was NOT considered heretical, nor did they break any laws. And they most definitely did NOT massacre the rich. They preached their message, lived off of the charity of others (including the bishop of Parma) and pressed on with their apostolic lifestyle.
3. Segarelli himself was imprisoned in the bishop's palace in Parma in the 1290's (apparently at the suggestion of the podesta' of Bologna, whose brother had been evicted from the Order for being too worldly). It was not until 1300, almost a half-century AFTER their foundation, that Segarelli was tried by the Domincan-led inquisition and burned as a heretic (for refusing to obey the papal directives). However, membership in the group was not an automatic stigma of heresy because many laypersons continued to leave donations for the Apostolici in their wills.
4. Around 1300, Fra Dolcino took over leadership of the group. But this did NOT result in immediate violence. Dolcino's message was similar to that of Segarelli, but heavily infused with apocalyptic imagery and prophecies. It is true that Dolcino predicted that their enemies would fall to the sword and be wiped from the face of the earth. HOWEVER, a careful reading of his prophecy reveals that Dolcino did NOT advocate violence for his followers. Instead, he expected the German Emperor to come to their aid and fight FOR them against the papal forces. Indeed, Dolcino undertook a peaceful, clandestine preaching campaign throughout northern Italy trying to gather more followers. There is no evidence that he went on a killing spree.
5. Regarding the statement that Dolcino and his followers killed "around 20,000" in the name of equality, this false idea comes from the biased source "History of the Heresiarch Fra Dolcino". This concept has been uncritically repeated by numerous authors from Beneventus da Imola to Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" (in fact, Eco's popular book has almost an entire chapter on the heresy of Dolcino, which is practically a verbatim recitation of the information in the "History"; and this falsehood was again repeated in the film-version of the novel where Sean Connery's character states that the Dolcinites roamed the countryside murdering the rich in order to make everyone equal. However, simply repeating the information does not make it accurate.)
6. Dolcino and his followers retreated to the mountains above Biella, Italy where no less than 4 papal crusades were launched against them. Contrary to the "murderous" characterization of the Dolcinites, the local populace of farmers and artisans actually supported their rebellion. Dolcino and his followers did not raid the countryside and slaughter the inhabitants. In fact, the region near Biella was known for its frequent peasant rebellions against the clerical control (and taxes) of the bishop of Vercelli. It was these very same peasants (and many local lords) who assisted the Apostolici against what they all believed was the unlawful incursion of papal authority. Popular support was so strong that the pope had to issue a special admonition directed towards the inhabitants of the Valsesia region. So many people were aiding the Apostolici (with food, clothing, etc) that the pope threatened excommunication for all those who defied papal authority by assisting the heretics. This outpouring of popular support, from wealthy land owners as well, directly contradicts the image of ravenous, murderous heretics scouring the countryside and killing all those in their path. This new view of the Apostolici as far less violent and receiving much more popular support has been put forth by a number of Italian scholars, including Gustavo Buratti and Corrado Mornese.
So, in conclusion, though the author of the original post might have a point about communism and violence, there is no way that using Fra Dolcino and the Apostolici can help prove that point. They didn't kill 20,000 Italians (in fact, even the number of Dolcino's followers killed [5000] has been found to be far too high). Thus by putting these sources for Dolcino in their historical context (i.e. by recognizing that they were penned by inquisitorial opponents who often stigmatized and demonized their subjects) we can hopefully put to rest the false notion that the Apostolici were bloodthirsty proto-communists.


Lu Sadler - 9/30/2003

Thank you for this article. For those of us born post McCarthy era, it is good to know the facts. Ann Coulter is obviously insane.


TruthSeeker24 - 8/28/2003

First Ann Coulter: Her new book called Treason is a half-truth bonaza.

Here's some simple facts. First J. Edgar Hoover was not a hero. He used the unconstitutional and illegal method of COINTELPRO to imitimidate and illegally slander people who weren't even communists. In fact in the 1960's he took a blind eye
to the RFK investigation of the Mafia. Why? Because both the Mafia and Hoover were invented by Freemasons and are Masonic. {Hoover is a Brother 33rd Degree Freemason}. Also, the FBI in the 1970's created restrictions of power after Hoover's death because of Hoover's foolishness. I forgot that Hoover was involved in the Ratline sending Nazi War Criminals inside America.

Second, Nixon is the head traitor. In WWII, he had Nazi ties and was leader over Jack Ruby. He's a Bohemian Grove member and a Council of Foreign Relations People in which both groups are dedicated to creation of the N.W.O. which is treasonous of itself.


Later Nixon involves himself in the JFK assassination by virtue of him being in Dallas and having connections with the Cuban extremists. In Watergate tapes are found of that and oh Watergate which Nixon treasonous tried to obstruct justice and he resigned because he knows that he will be in court for more than obstructing justice if all of the tapes were released to the public. Coulter has forgotten these portions of her book which exposes here half-truth lie.


(Really it's a lie because a half-truth is still a lie). Also, she praises Reagan.????wow. Reagan was the California governor who stalked Black Panthers in the 1960's, then he came and illegally gave the Vatican dipolmatic relatio ns with the USA, involved in Iran Contra, involved in the increased production of concentration camps in the 1980;s, etc. Bush?????


George H. W. Bush is a Brother Freemason, drug smuggler by the Zapate Offshore Oil Company, pedophile, involved in the JFK assassination, Watergate, CIA trained terrorists, creation of his Brother Freemason Saddam Hussein, etc. Need I go on about her more contradiction and the only truth to her mountain of lies is probably McCarthy's efforts to extinguish Communists from infiltrating the USA>Coulter is a piece of work. The left has just as treasonous people as the right does so Coulter is refuted. Now to the Skulls and Bones along with the Bush Crime Family's involvement in WWII>
Skulls and Bones support for Adolph Hitler

Prescott Bush (George W. Bush’s grandfather) and other Skulls and Bones members financed Hitler’s war machine, which is trading with the enemy. The following expose will prove this. Prescott Bush [a member of the Skulls and Bones since 1917] is therefore a traitor to his nation and a Nazi. Allen Dulles was involved with Nazis, but this is the Skulls and Bones connection.



Other Skulls and Bones financed Hitler include Averill Harriman (part of the Skulls and Bones since 1913), and his brother Roland Harriman (part of the group since 1917). What is the connection and how did this come from? First, it’s time to tie in companies and gro ups. As early as 1900, George Herbert Walker [George W. Bush’s maternal great-grandfather] formed a banking and investment firm of G. H. Walker and Company in 1900.



Later it shifted from St. Louis to the address of 1 Wall Street. That’s nothing wrong or illegal yet. George Walker’s company soon merged with the British Brown Brothers to form W.A. Harriman & Co. in the 1920’s. The next link is Fritz Thyssen who was a German industralist who funded Hitler’s reign to power in 1923. Later in 1924, Averell Harriman and Thyseen created the Union Banking Corporation in New York to handle funds to be supplied to Thyssen’s Dutch bank [Bank voor Handel en Scheepyaart or BHS] for American investment. In a 3 year period, the Harriman firm sold more than $50 million of German bonds to American investors.



George Walker was the Union Banking Corp.’s President and the firm was located in the office of Averill Harriman’s Company at 39 Broadway in New York. In 1926, Bert Walker made Prescott Bush in vice president of W. A. Harrimann. Prescott Bush’s specialty was to deal with companies that traded with Germany. In the 1930’s, a further connection was needed that propelled Union Banking to become an out-out Nazi money laundering machine. A new company that was formed was the Brown Brothers, Harriman (which was a product of Harriman & Company plus a British Investment company). Prescott Bush became one of the senior partners of this new company and it’s located at 59 Broadway, whil e Union Banking remained at 39 Broadway. In 1934, Walker lead Prescott to be at the board of directors of Union Banking.



Prescott Bush by 1934 had tons of power and economic influence and Walker even took over the American operation of Hamburg-Amerika Line (a cover for I.G. Farben’s Nazi espionage unit in the U.S. The smuggling line smuggled in German agents, propaganda, and money to bribe American politicians to see things in Hitler’s way.). The Hamburg-Amerika line even subsidized pro-Nazi newspapers in the U.S.A. as it was in Nazi Germany. Who is Hamburg? Hamburg is a city in Germany and the Hamburg-Amerika Line operation was run by Max Warburg. Who is Warburg? Max Warburg was a Jewish person who was on the representative on the board of Hamburg-Amerika. He appointed Hitler’s operation in the 1930’s. Isn’t it surprising that Rothschild Jews and Zionists supported Nazis during WWII. The following informati on isn’t what Zionists want you to know:



Max Warburg’s son, Erich Warburg, sent a cable to his cousin Frederick M. Warburg [a director of Harriman railroad system] to use all your influence to stop anti-Nazi activity in America 2 days after March 29, 1933. Traitorous Jews (in the minority) have all participated in supporting Nazi Germany at the expense of 6 million Jewish deaths. Even the American Jewish Committee and the B’nai B’rith (a racist Zionist Masonic group which is the origin of the ACLU) continued it’s no-attack-on Hitler stance throughout the 1930’s regardless of protests by real Jewish people and anti-fascists. Jewish groups who opposed supporting the Nazis include the American Jewish Congress (with Jacob Chaitkan as legal director of the boycott against the Nazis), American Federation of Labor, and oth er groups opposed to Warburg’s treason. The businesses of [Schiff, Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb & Co.] all are involved in the financing of Nazis and are part of the Rothschild network. The Rothschilds (Illuminati group) control all Zionists and give Jews a bad representation for profit. Orthodox Jewish people can’t stand the Zionists. Zionists are the enemy of the Jewish people.



Alois Hitler, father of Adolf, was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber and Baron Rothschild.

Zionism is never mentioned in the Bible and comes from the word Sionism=the sun, related to the Merovingian bloodline of the Illuminati or the Priory of Sion. Zion and Sion is in the Bible describing a hill in Israel, the nation of Israel, or God who is Christ, but not Zionism or Sionism. Also it’s ironic to note that Hitler was a Rothschild [recent information have shown that he is one-quarter Jewish since research proves that he was the grandson of Baron Rothschild who was sent away to another family.] One source shows this in a simple way:



“"There are some people who seriously doubt that Johann Georg Hiedler was the father of Alois. Thyssen and Koehler, for example, claim that Chancellor Dollfuss had ordered the Austrian police to conduct a thorough investigation into the Hitler family. As a result of this investigation a secret document was prepared that proved that Maria Anna Schicklgruber was living in Vienna at the time she conceived. At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back to her home in Spital where Alois was born. If it is true that one of the Rothschilds is the real father of Alois Hitler, it would make Ado lf a quarter Jew. According to these sources, Adolf Hitler knew of the existence of this document and the incriminating evidence it contained. In order to obtain it he precipitated events in Austria and initiated the assassination of Dollfuss. According to this story, he failed to obtain the document at that time since Dollfuss had secreted it and had told Schuschnigg of its whereabouts so that in the event of his death the independence of Austria would remain assured. Several stories of this general character are in circulation.” (Langer, The Mind of Adolf Hitler, p.107).



I wonder if the Neo-Nazis and white supremacist racists found this information out and believed it, what would they think of Hitler now? Ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!! It gets worse. By 1933, just after Hitler’s regime was consolidated, an agreement was reached in Berlin for the coordination of all Nazi commerce with the U.S.A. (The Harriman International Co., led by Averill Harriman’s first cousin Oliver, was to head a syndicate of 150 firms and individuals, to conduct all exports from Hitler (from Germany to the United States). The pact was negotiated in Berlin between Hitler’s economic minister, Hjalmar Schacht, and John Foster Dulles (int ernational attorney for dozens of Nazi enterprises), with the counsel of Max Warburg and Kurt von Schroedor. John Foster Dulles (this traitor and Nazi) would soon become the U.S. Secretary of State and have great influence over Republicans in the 1950’s.



His brother Allen will become the head of the C.I.A. and justly fired by JFK, who was martyred at 11/22/63. The financing of Hitler continued on until the U.S. government investigated the Skulls and Bones’ operation at 1942. On Oct. 20, 1943, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City, which were conducted by Prescott Bush in violation of the Under the Trading with the Enemy Act.



The U.S. also took over the Union Banking Corporation (Prescott Bush was a director of it) and the U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp’s stock shared (all owned by Prescott Bush, Roland Harriman, 3 Nazi executives, and 2 associates of Bush). Why 1942? Because the U.S.A. in 1942 began to attack the Nazi military and these acts came to strip the Skulls and Bones’ treasonous activities. George H. W. Bush soon participated in the Navy at WWII at 1942 also. Why wasn’t Prescott Bush, Walker, etc tried for war crimes of trading with the enemy? Because this world is controlled by secret societies and it would be silly for these groups to convict a high-level of their own to justice.


By TruthSeeker
8:39 am. EST
July 3, 2003




Jesse Lamovsky - 8/23/2003

Mr. Thomas, I'm basically in agreement with your ideas on Communism, and the Jewish component in the Bolshevik movement can't be argued. But I do have an issue with this paragraph in your post:

"...that "intense passion for revenge" manifested itself in 1941, when Ukranians, Belorussians, Russians, etc flocked to join the Einsatzgrueppen so they could freely take vengeance on the bloodthirsty killers who had massacred them. Last year I interviewed a former Swabian Wehrmacht corporal who served on the Eastern Front. Every time they overran a Soviet unit, the SS liason asked in Russian "Who is the Kommissar"? All of the captives, who presumably spoke no other German, turned and pointed, saying "Da ist der Jued". The commissars were quickly tried and shot. That's revenge as Kaganovich deserved to get it."

I must confess to being uneasy about the tone that manifests itself in this passage. I'm not going to stoop so low as to accuse you of anti-Semitism (which, I agree, is an abused term). Yet, unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be at least implying that the murder by German mobile killing units of more than a million people was in some way justified simply because of the crimes of Jewish Communists. And whether or not the admittedly mistreated Ukrainians, Belorussians, Ruthenians, et al were motivated by vengeance, the fact remains that the vast majority of those murdered by the Einzantsgruppen were not "Commissars". They were old men, babies, women, children, rabbis, craftsmen, artisans, the Orthodox, Zionists, Bundists- human beings who certainly were not guilty of any crime that justified being robbed, humiliated, physically molested, lined up in anti-tank ditches and butchered. Trotsky, Kaganovich, Ehrenburg, and Dzerzhinsky were criminals. I sincerely hope that you don't believe it was acceptable to use a million human beings as stand-in scapegoats for the crimes of a relatively small group of men. No offense intended, but there is a moral equivalence expressed in this post that I find objectionable, to say the least.

The starvation of Ukrainian kulaks and the existence of the gulags cannot be justified as "revenge" for the abuse of Jews by the Czars. Nor can Babi Yar or Kovno be justified as "revenge" for the abuse of the Russian people by the Bolsheviks, many of whom were apostate Jews. A man's crime is his own. To suggest otherwise is to think the same way as the mass-murdering, collectivist left has thought since 1789.

Also, you single out Russian Bolshevism, with its Jewish component, as the worst example of Communist tyranny. But what about the Chinese Communists, who murdered fifty million people? What about Pol Pot? What about Mugabe? They weren't Jews. There is no discernable "Jewish influence" in the crimes perpetrated by these men and their associates. Is Communism and collectivism bad, or is it only bad when it is practiced by atheists of Jewish ethnicity?

I have no problem acknowledging the Jewish ethnicity of many of many Bolsheviks. I don't deny that their experience as Jews in Czarist Russia probably had a good deal to do with their animus toward the Russian people, their religion, and their institutions. I have no problem acknowledging this because their crimes were their reponsibility, not mine, not any monolithic bloc ("the Jews")- and not the responsibility of the innocents murdered by the Einzantsgruppen or their Slavic flunkies, either.

(By the way, I can scarcely believe that you singled out a socialist and Pol Pot apologist like Noam Chomsky for praise. Why, because he's anti-Zionist? Come on. Are you anti-Communist or not?)

I intended no personal aspersions or offense in this post, sir. Just seeking a little bit of clarification!


F.H. THOMAS - 8/23/2003

I knew there was a real, primary-document, research-loving historian in here somewhere!


F.H. THOMAS - 8/23/2003


Dear John Doe,


I noticed you became a little over-enthusiastic in jumping on our young colleague Lamovsky, who has added, in my view, much to our discussions.

Please remember that FDR came from New York, which had the largest communist party in the United States. Agreed? Also remember that FDR was known for successfully switching the base of the democratic party from right, rural, and Southern, to left, urban, and Northern. Are we together so far?

The way he did it was to incorporate Communist (or whatever lefties) to vote for the democratic party, using appeals not heard since his cousin Teddy. So when members of a party switch their votes, but not their allegiance, it does not mean that they do not exist. It is just that they are hidden. In this case, thanks to the HUAC, (not McCarthy), these same Commies registered democratic and have been there since.

Now, FDR did this switcheroo in New York before he did it in Washington. He already had Communist allegiance when he ran for president. So were they Commies when they voted Democratic? I grant they may be considered otherwise, but I called em as I saw them, when Iused the figure of 1/3 of Rooseveldt's gubernatorial vote.

I am sure you are a good person, but you do not seem so when you put on your "hysterical leftie" persona. I would lead more with reason, and less with emotion, to get a better hearing. I also suggest that you be pround of your positions, and use your actual name.

You may want to read my note to Greenland.

enjoy!


F.H. Thomas - 8/23/2003



Hello Josh,

When you begin and end with ad hominem attacks, that is simply a way you tell the reader that you do not have much of an argument. I am responding to help you have a better one.

Those who assert that movements in history have no ethnic or ciltural implications at all, or that their favorite ethnic group is mysteriously the only one which is innocent, are fooling themselves as well as others. Can you imagine the Mongol invasions done by anyone else? Culture is a part of it.


May I quote an observer, Winston Churchill, in 1920?

"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people."

(Josh, that "intense passion for revenge" manifested itself in 1941, when Ukranians, Belorussians, Russians, etc flocked to join the Einsatzgrueppen so they could freely take vengeance on the bloodthirsty killers who had massacred them. Last year I interviewed a former Swabian Wehrmacht corporal who served on the Eastern Front. Every time they overran a Soviet unit, the SS liason asked in Russian "Who is the Kommissar"? All of the captives, who presumably spoke no other German, turned and pointed, saying "Da ist der Jued". The commissars were quickly tried and shot. That's revenge as Kaganovich deserved to get it.)

Or another, David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, in January 1918?

"The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

Or the Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, in 1919:

"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

But Vorwaerts, the American Jewish newspaper, said

"The Bolshevik Revolution was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."

To be fair, the Russian revolution should be described as a democratic revolution which was overthrown in by a jewish coup.

Regarding the actual numbers murdered by Kaganovich, neither of us knows exactly what they were, or exactly how long it takes a man in the Russian November to starve, but you seem to agree they were horrendous, and in any case far higher than, for example, anything claimed to date for the holocaust. The other little holocausts going on included a well-documented but little mentioned one in all of the eastern states of Germany, in 1945 as the Red Army commissars, cheered on by the bloodthirsty Illa Ehrenberg, who counselled mass rapes and shootings, in that order, killed 3.5 million and ethnically cleansed 13 million German civilians. (Check those figures with the UN, bubba)

You seem to think that telling the truth about gross criminality by a number of Jews constitutes anti-semitism (a word which loses steam every time it is used). However, I have a great deal of respect for many of the Arabs, who are mostly full Semites, and you should recongize that most American Jews are very low in their Semite content. In fact they are mostly German. On the other hand I have great respect and love for many Jews. Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, and Norman Finkelstein come to mind for their integrity.

I got involved with this exchange to remind you to remember The morality of Thucidides: What a historian does is not to pander myths to achieve the adulation of the crowd, but to create a thing of lasting value for all generations.

Don't pander myths, Josh. The Jews can stand the truth just as can everyone else who mass-murdered in our bloody history.


By the way, you said "nonsense" to my lead paragraph on the penitentii, without really knowing what you were about. Look up Fra Dolcino. His group killed around 20,000 up and down the Po valley, in the name of equality, before he and 5000 followers were themselves done in. He was only one of many. Although the links are a little stretched, at least one link to him goes back to the patron of poverty himself, Saint Frances of Assisi. The middle ages did more to make modern times than we sometimes give them credit for.



Dave Thomas - 8/22/2003

KGB archives have finally made it impossible for Eric Foner or others to ignore the guilt of the Rosenbergs and Hiss. Even though Joe was a demagogue it does not mean that the KGB had not infiltrated the highest levels of the American government or that an important percentage of Americans felt so strongly socialism was a superior form of government that they committed treason.

Centering the debate on Joe ignores the treason of important socialists from 1920-1980. Maybe Stalin was right in Februrary of 1946 when he said communism and capitalism could not peacefully coexist.


Jesse Lamovsky - 8/22/2003

Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I appreciate getting set straight.


John Doe - 8/21/2003

I had the table of the vote in NY in 1948 nicely laid out, but the software this site uses bunched everything up.


John Doe - 8/21/2003

Mr. Lamovsky wrote:

"Also, I don't find it such a stretch that Roosevelt was elected governor of New York with some assistance from Communist voters. Remember, Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party (basically a CPUSA front) took New York in the 1948 election. "


Mr. L. must live in one of those science fiction alternate universes like the ones in all the stories where the Confederacy won the Civil War or the Axis won World War 2.

I've explained above that the Communist party was practically an impotent force in US (and NY)politics when FDR won the NY governorship in 1928 and 1930. Now let's look at Henry Wallace's triumph in NY in the 1948 Presidential election. The actual figures for THIS universe (which it took me all of about 3 minutes to find) are as follows:

CANDIDATE PARTY VOTE PERCENTAGE
Thomas E. Dewey Republican 2,841,163 45.99%
Harry S. Truman Democrat 2,780,204 45.01%
Henry Wallace American Labor 509,599 8.25%
Norman Thomas Socialist 40,879 0 .66%
All Others 5,532 0.09%

I should explain that the American Labor Party was an already existing Communist front party in NY. (It was founded as a democratic left of center party by anti-Communist labor leaders in 1936 and infiltrated and taken over by Communists during the early 1940s. Instead of fighting for their party the labor leaders simply withdrew and formed the New York Liberal Party in 1944.) So Wallace did not have to set up a Progressive Party in NY, they just used the ALP line. Now Wallace was not a Communist himself, but he was a dupe of Communists. It's unfortunate that he won any votes, much less 8.25% But he came in a very distant third, not first and 90% of NY voters chose either Thomas Dewey or Harry Truman, both of whom were, in their own very different ways, committed to American Constitutional democracy.


Jesse Lamovsky - 8/21/2003

Mr. Thomas does seem to put peculiar emphasis on the role of Jews in the Communist movements of the 20th century, which was a bit discomfiting to me as well. But when you add in the deaths caused by the Red Chinese, as well as by Pol Pot and other Marxists, his numbers are pretty close to the mark- Communist governments really did kill about one hundred million of their own citizens during the 20th century. And in defense of Mr. Thomas, he didn't argue the point I made in my reply- that Communist governments were equally hostile to pious Jews as they were to pious Christians.

Also, I don't find it such a stretch that Roosevelt was elected governor of New York with some assistance from Communist voters. Remember, Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party (basically a CPUSA front) took New York in the 1948 election.


Josh Greenland - 8/20/2003

"Communism was not invented in the 19th century by Marx and Engels. One could better trace its precepts of violence and armed taking of property by an elite cadre, as well as its name, to the radical "penitentii" of the 12th and 13th centuries, in Northern Italy, who loved to murder and steal as a means of equalization in society, until they themselves were killed."

This is nonsense.

"But Marx and Engels, and their cohorts, took the earlier concepts and made them even more bloodthirsty. The most foul act in all of history is unquestionably the Soviet "liquidation of the Kulaks", in 1932, in which Kaganovich, head of the Checka, had commissars and troops surround the northeast 1/3 of the Ukraine, enter and take every scrap of food, then withdraw to the perimeter, to shoot any who attempted egress. It only took 2 weeks for all inside to be dead, 12 million souls, men, women and children, their lifeless 50 pound bodies easy to dispose of, this in the name of "progress"."

I'm no expert on starvation, but this sounds wrong. The Ukraine is huge, so 1/3rd of its area would still be huge. How could any government force get rid of every scrap of food, in a place with highly fertile soil and a moist climate? Something would always be growing, perhaps even in winter.

If the water were somehow gotten rid of, I could believe the death figures, but I don't think you can guarantee that all or most people "all inside" would be dead in two weeks if they lacked food but still had water. I'll also note that many people in Czarist Russia and the USSR were ingenious about living off the land, as the Nazis found when they tried to starve out surrounded Soviet military units.

The 12 million number is at the high end of Robert Conquest's range of 6-14 million starved in the collectivization by the Soviets. I understand that most historians familiar with the issue consider Conquest's numbers too high.

"A particular objective for Kangaovich was to reduce the influence of Christianity, which in the Ukraine was still strong desite Communism, and which he, as an apostate Jew, deplored for more than one reason. Many other such real, well documented atrocities followed."

Ah yes, the evil, satanical Jews always hate Christianity especially, don't they, at least in the telling by inveterate anti-Semites.

"This was worse than the Mongols, worse than the Shoganate wars, or the 100 years war, worse than the black plague, worse than Rome, worse than black or white slavery, worse than anything."

Worse than Nazi Germany's murders? Worse than the Axis's murders? I'm sure your answer is an unqualified Yes, for ideological reason if not for historically truthful ones. Of course you provide no numbers for Axis-caused death.

"Over the course of most of a century, these thugs (socialists, leftists, agrarian reformers, progressives, communists, take your pick) killed almost 100 million people, taking care to kill the smartest first, thus decapitating the culture. Meanwhile, the elite waxed fat, until they collapsed from an excess of murders, leaving Kaganovich's successors to shift smoothly into organized crime in Russia, Coney Island, or Tel Aviv."

Ah yes, the inflated commie death figures, mixed with description of the fat, evil, "cosmopolitan", international Jews. This is classic stuff! (Coney Island?? Weird....)

"How could anyone support Communism with this history?"

I wonder how anyone can BELIEVE this history.

"Roosevelt could not have been elected governor, hence could not have later been president, without the large Communist party in NY, which gave him 1/3 of his votes. Communists formed a big part of both his state government and his national government."

I would LOVE to see some numbers here! How could the Communist Party, even in the 1930s, have been 1/3rd of ANY electorate in the US? I understand that the CPUSA's membership reached a few hundred thousand at tops during the `30s. New York was still the most populous state in the US. The Communists were all around the US, not just in NY state. So how could they have provided 1/3rd of Gov. Roosevelt's voters??

"Given that Europe was essentially out of the depression by 1936, by the usual means of stimulus and tax cuts,"...

What countries are you talking about? The USSR had its own isolated commie economy that wasn't touched by the Depression, and the Nazis got out of the depression with governmental (heavily military) spending. And my understanding is that most of the rest of Europe was still in an economic malaise during the `30s, but I'd be happy to be corrected on that point if I'm wrong.

..."which were not tried here, it is clear that FDR prolonged the depression in the US to assure that he and his leftist allies could survive politically."

I don't think this assertion has any historical credibility whatever.

"His miserable maneuverings to get us into WW II by secret anti-Japanese maneuvers (see Stennit, "Day of Deceit") no doubt had the same intention, and achieved its objective at the cost of 50 million dead."

So somehow that 50 million dead figure (is it for all of WWII?) can be laid at Roosevelt's doorstep? I guess the Axis had nothing to do with it and weren't the aggressors. You live in a STRANGE world....

"Unquestionably, without the US in the war, The Soviet Union would have fallen to Hitler, particularly given that Stalin had had the GRU murder all its top generals, in 1938."

The killing of the generals did happen, one of the few things you got right in your post, but the USSR probably would have prevailed, if in a worse state. The USSR had moved all of its industry out its European cities and behind the Urals, and had moved its government out of Moscow, too, and could have survived the loss of that city and fought on for quite a time. The USSR had 3 times the population of Germany, only slightly less that many times all the Axis countries fighting in the USSR, and with its productive capacity, Germany couldn't have won without some kind of quick knockout punch, which with the USSR's infrastructure, pre-planning for WWII and huge landmass was highly unlikely. Unquestionably, American material aid to the USSR and distraction of the Axis did help shorten the fight.

"So, when McCarthy went after these criminals, who had indeed been protected actively by both FDR and HST,"

I'd love to see some proof for this statement!

"he was fighting evil incarnate. They were real communists, whose job here, in addition to spying, was to make excuses for Soviet mass-murder, in conjunction with the leftist media, including the NY Times, as Coulter so accurately points out, in enough detail to convince anyone who actually reads her book."

Except for hardcore anticommunist conservative like Radosh and Horowitz, and everyone to the left of Attilla the Hun.

"I suggest that those who commented sympathetically to the leftist agenda, and against McCarthy, reconsider their position. The slander against him then was real, done by real murderers and their paid and unpaid American accomplices. The slander against him today is simply the dying whimpers of a dead philosophy, which will, God willing, stay dead."

Give us a break. The guy was an amoral pathological liar who was so alcoholic that you can hear it clearly when you listen to recordings of his voice.


Stephen Kriz - 8/20/2003

Editor: THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT DOES NOT MEET HNN'S STANDARDS OF CIVIL DEBATE AS OUTLINED HERE:

http://hnn.us/articles/982.html#civil


BJ - 8/20/2003

Ann Coulter - not a REAL blonde - look at her roots. As for her politics and writing, nothing like a little controversy to kick up book sales. Should we take this blowhard seriously? It is all about money and sales. A constitutional expert who disregards the Constitution. Hmm . . . what could that possibly mean? BUT her numbers are sagging against Al Franken's new book, which the Fox Network is trying to suppress. Ann will be history soon! Hurrah!

BJ


Jesse Lamovsky - 8/20/2003

Thanks for the compliment, Mr. Thomas. My family is from Eastern Europe (present-day Belarus), but my antecedants came here in 1910, when Lenin was still hanging around Geneva. Actually, my experience with cultural Marxism comes from the best seat in the house- from enrollment at an American university!


Derek Catsam - 8/19/2003

So Ron Radosh and other conservative scholars are not actually alarmed with what Coulter has written, they are simnply jealous? That is an odd and insubstantiated claim to make. Evidence, please? Or do you not have to bother with such niceties as evidence?
On top of this, there is nothing more noisome than when someone throws out the "real world" argument. What does this mean, that academics do not live in the real world, or for that matter, the even dumber assertion that we live in "socialist paradises"? What aspect of your real world is different from mine? The 'real world" argument is such vacuous piffle, intended as ad hominem rather than as argument. Until I don't have to pay my rent, buy my groceries, attend funerals, keep an eye on credit card debt, adhere to the speed limit, keep a plus balance in my bank account, or wear shirt and shoes in order to get service, I am going to reject out of hand the obnoxious and unsubstantiated "real world" argument of anyone else.


Q - 8/18/2003

lol

He demonized people who did not deserve to be demonized sounds a lot like falsely accusing. Ok jokster, put in that sentence if you prefer and read the article again.

You nutters are funny.

Q


F.H. Thomas - 8/18/2003


To Mr. Lamovsky:

Thank you for a thoughtful and well-reasoned contribution. It takes someone with connections to eastern Europe, as I judge from your name you may have, to understand how bloodthirsty the relatively tiny group of soviet Communists really were.

Agreed that while Communism as a state philosophy is essentially dead, "cultural bolshevism" (Lenin's term) as a means of undermining and destroying society from within, is still extremely active.

The principals of cultural bolshevism are proceeding on original plan:

destroy the role of the European Christian male, by accusing them of all ills in society;

destroy the family by granting women disproportionate rights in divorce and financial advantage therefrom;

destroy Christianity by riducule and legalisms;

reduce respect for life by pushing abortion;

infiltrate and undermine education, making the population unaware passive and easy to control;

undermine and infiltrate the law, giving all power to criminals and none to victims;

undermine business by taxes and regulation.

This plan, originally promulgated by a secretive international group called "the 400", in 1888, was adopted as state policy, and renamed by the Bolshevics. It is, as you know, as active today as ever, and has sadly achieved many of its goals here.


John Doe - 8/17/2003

You wrote:

"Roosevelt could not have been elected governor, hence could not have later been president, without the large Communist party in NY, which gave him 1/3 of his votes."

FDR was elected governor of NY in 1928 for a two year term and re-elected in 1930.

In 1928 the Communist Party of the United States, just recovering from an internal factional struggle, was at a low point with fewer than 10,000 members nationwide. Furthur it was going thru an ultra-left phase where even mainstream socialists (to say nothing of liberals like Roosevelt) were denounced as "social fascists" . By the time FDR was re-elected in 1930 things were looking up for the CP as the Depression settled in, but it was still a pathetically weak organization. And it was still ultra-left and would remain so until the Popular Front era beginning in the mid-1930s. So the CP would have had no interest in seeing FDR elected governor of NY in 1928 or 1930 and would have had only an infinitesmal ability to influence the election in his favor had it wished to do so. It certainly could not have provided one-third of his votes, an allegation I had never seen before reading your post.


Josh Greenland - 8/17/2003

Stephen,
Thank you for the links! I've bookmarked them and will share them with others.

Now I'm REALLY intrigued: "Like so many conservatives (e.g. Jimmy Swaggart, Bob Barr, Gary Bauer), who speak out against what they view as "deviate sexual behavior", while themselves have unusual sexual inclinations,"....

I've read about Jimmy Swaggart making it with that prostitute and wanting her DAUGHTER as well, but what about Bob Barr and Gary Bauer? I'd especially like to know about Bauer, because he is SUCH a little creep!


Patrick R. Sullivan - 8/17/2003

The author of the article has demonstrated a sloppiness with facts that disqualifies him as an historian. For example:

" Coulter challenged O'Reilly to name just one individual falsely accused by McCarthy of being a Communist. "

Here's the actual transcript, which shows us something quite different:

O'Reilly: [McCarthy was a]guy who used his power to do some good but a lot of bad too."

Coulter: "Like what?"

O’Reilly: "He demonized people who didn’t deserve to be demonized."

Coulter: "That’s not true. Name one. There is not one."

O’Reilly: "I’ll name one—Dalton Trumbo."

Coulter: "He had nothing to do with Dalton Trumbo."

O’Reilly: "Sure he did. It was the House of Unamerican Activities Committee. And who was overseeing that?"

Coulter: "He was known as Senator McCarthy. He was in the Senate not the House. Everyone confuses him with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee."

O’Reilly: "But who was overseeing that? Come on, you know the clubhouse rules."

Coulter: "He had nothing to do with HUAC. You see this is part of the myth. Everyone says this. Everyone says HUAC."

O’Reilly: "All right, I don’t want to debate McCarthy. He’s dead...And I’m not debating what’s in your book."

As we can see from the above, the question was not one of naming Communists, but of "demonizing" people.

BTW, Trumbo probably was a communist. He was certainly promoting Communist ideas in his screenplays, as were many other Hollywood writers and performers.


Jesse Lamovsky - 8/16/2003

Would like to make a couple of small points here:

I believe I used the term "paleoconservative" to which you refer. I use the term reluctantly, because these kinds of labels are inherently problematic (they obscure the major philosophic differences on issues like protectionism and foreign policy between old-line conservatives like Pat Buchanon and Llewelyn Rockwell). I'm not a leftist- anything but. What I was attempting to do was to point out the errors some of our fellow posters made in describing the dynamics of conservatism post-WWII.

By the way (though you may already know this), Karl Marx saved a great deal of ire for Jews as well as Christians. The apostate Jew slandered his co-religionists: "Money is the jealous God of Israel... the bill of exchange is the real god of the Jews". I understand that there have been a great deal of notable Jewish communists (Marx, Rosa Luxembourg, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, to name a few), but this shouldn't obscure the suffering experienced by pious Jews under the Soviet dictatorship, not to mention in Nazi Germany (a transmogrified, corporate socialism that cast the Jews in the role of "oppressor" and the Aryan German folk in the role of "oppressed"). Another example: the violent hostility in Israel by left-wing Laborites toward the ultraorthodox, hostility manifested in crude insults and cartoons that would be right at home in Der Sturmer, but seem oddly out of place in a Hebrew publication. Communism is anti-clerical to the core, and it was long before Marx- witness the slaughter of priests in Jacobin France. But it plays no favorites- every religion is its enemy, every faith a foe to the secular religion of socialism.

Also, communism is, alas, not a dead philosophy (we should be so lucky). It's alive and well all over this country, in fact. The advocates of coerced "multi-culturalism" and diversity-at-gunpoint have simply substituted a race/sex/gender dichotomy for the old labor/capital model, with white males of European ancestry serving as the "oppressor" class, and blacks, women, and homosexuals as the "oppressed". It's still Marxism, only Marxism tailored to fit the (supposed) social and economic conditions of the United States. And these new Marxists are winning. They are advancing their cause in the halls of academia, and in the Supreme Court as well. Thanks to the brainwashing of the socialists in government, in the universities, and in the media, we now are stuck with a generation of students who thoughtlessly drone on and on about how this country stands for nothing but "genocide" and "oppression", who scorn Washington and Jefferson as a bunch of "dead, white, slave-holding males", who refer contemptuously to the Constitution as a mere "contract to ensure the patriarchy of the white, male, slave-holding ruling class" and have a false notion of the Declaration of Independence: namely, that it advocates communistic "equality of results", when in fact it does nothing of the sort. To this litany we can add the efforts to deligitimize the Episcopalian Church, the dominant American church, by ordaining gay and lesbian clerics. American Marxists can't start killing off ministers and bishops- although they'd probably like to. But they can destroy the moral authority of the church, and in lieu of state-sponsored mass executions, that's good enough for them (for now).

Also, I believe that the policies espoused by so-called neo-conservatives- "exporting democracy" (by force), perpetual "wars of liberation"- owe a lot more to communism than to any kind of American conservatism. Paul Wolfowitz's reference to Iraqi guerrillas as the "forces of reaction" is pure communist rhetoric. I wanted to make this point, among others, when I used the term "paleo-conservatism" in my earlier posting.

In sum, I agree with Mr. Thomas's assertions about the nature of communism. The tyranny of the USSR, Red China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, were not "pervertions" of communism- they were, in fact, its essence. But I repeat, communism is not dead. It hasn't worked in the past, and it never will work, but its champions will never give up their dreams of the utopian socialist society. Believing that this is a dead philosophy is dangerous, because it blinds us to the real menace the Republic faces from these people.


NYGuy - 8/16/2003

F. H. Thomas wrote in the first post on this thread:

“Unfortunately, the American Jewish community, not just the Rosenbergs, was in this up to its hips.”

This comment was met with an uncalled for attack on F. H. Thomas, as follows:

“Unfortunately, the American Jewish community, not just the Rosenbergs, was in this up to its hips." include both an unsubstantiated accusation and evidence of your blind bigotry. “

”I do not know whether to prescribe medication, education, or psychiatric treatment for your condition.”

NYGuy:

An important part of the Communist movement was the Lincoln Brigade.

On this link: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/abe-brigade.html is the following comment:

“The conviction that made volunteering for a war against fascism possible was born from the economic calamity and political turmoil of the 1930s. Like many during the Great Depression, the young volunteers had an experience of deprivation and injustice that led them to join the burgeoning student, unemployed, union, and cultural movements that were influenced by the Communist Party (CP) and other Left organizations. Involvement in these groups exposed them to a Marxist and internationalist perspective and, with their successes in galvanizing people to conscious, political action, gave rise to a revolutionary elan.”
The idea that Jews were associated with the Lincoln Brigade is not only well known but also honored at the San Francisco “Jewish Film Festival”.

http://www.sfjff.org/cgi-bin/sfjff_resource.pl?titleID=750

Title: Forever Activists: Stories from the Abraham Lincoln Brigade:

Filmmaker Judith Montell

Directed by Judy Montell
United States
1990
16mm color
60 minutes
English
Subjects:
Demographics:
Genres:

The above site provides the following introduction:

“An exhilarating celebration of the idealistic Americans who joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight against Franco's fascist revolt in Spain. Director Montell travels with the Brigade veterans who returned to Spain for the 50th Anniversary of the Spanish Civil War. She interviews a sparkling and irresistible contingent of veterans, a surprising and disproportionate number of whom are Jewish, who saw the Brigade as a chance to fight back against Hitler and the rising tide of European fascism.”


Meanwhile on another site”

http://www.counterpunch.org/leon0528.html

We are told:

Among the 45,000 were 2,800 men and women from the United States, including some 90 disenfranchised African-Americans, who formed what was later called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

Turning these simple statements of fact, which appear reasonable, into evidence of “Bigotry, Racism, etc.” is unnecessary and only chills the exchange of legitimate ideas.


Dave Livingston - 8/16/2003

It appears that many of the complaints about Ann Coulter's writing derive from jealousy and envy. Jealousy that she writes bboks that sell and which people actually read and envy that she thereby profits.

Is this a manifestation of the isolation of academia referred to by Dennis Praeger? As Praeger said, most academics live in socialist paradises virtually unconnected to real world Amereica. And as he said, Professors are nearly the only American workers who pay no penalty if they are mistaken all of the time, foster kooky, unworkable theories.

Of course, academics are not the only set of Americans largely cut off from mainstream society. Geo. Bush the elder lost a vote or two when he declared he'd never stood in a grocery store line. He understands the problems & concerns of ordinasry Americans? Fat chance!


Herodotus - 8/15/2003

The first link says nothing about homosexuals.

The second contains blatant factual errors. The first that came up was the reference to McCarthy's military service, which has never been in question. The article suggested that McCarthy never flew in combat, when in fact his sobriquet "Tailgunner Joe" did not come out of thin area.

The third article indicates that McCarthy went after homosexuals, but because they were communists or communist sympathisers, not because they were homosexual.

None of the three provides any information to suggest that McCarthy was gay. Your citation of a single newspaper article from amid the height of the McCarthy period is interesting, but based on hearsay and not substantiated by any additional information you provide.

Again, where's the evidence that McCarthy was a repressed homosexual? Or is it just that he was a Republican, and all Republicans are evil, just as Bush is worse than Hitler, in your logic?


F.H.Thomas - 8/15/2003


Some of the leftist commentary above, replete with humerous terms such as "paleoconservative", brings to mind Churchill's observation that "anyone who is not a communist as a student has no heart, and anyone who is not a conservative afterwards has no brain". It goes to the limits of theory and good intention.

Communism was not invented in the 19th century by Marx and Engels. One could better trace its precepts of violence and armed taking of property by an elite cadre, as well as its name, to the radical "penitentii" of the 12th and 13th centuries, in Northern Italy, who loved to murder and steal as a means of equalization in society, until they themselves were killed.

But Marx and Engels, and their cohorts, took the earlier concepts and made them even more bloodthirsty. The most foul act in all of history is unquestionably the Soviet "liquidation of the Kulaks", in 1932, in which Kaganovich, head of the Checka, had commissars and troops surround the northeast 1/3 of the Ukraine, enter and take every scrap of food, then withdraw to the perimeter, to shoot any who attempted egress. It only took 2 weeks for all inside to be dead, 12 million souls, men, women and children, their lifeless 50 pound bodies easy to dispose of, this in the name of "progress".

A particular objective for Kangaovich was to reduce the influence of Christianity, which in the Ukraine was still strong desite Communism, and which he, as an apostate Jew, deplored for more than one reason. Many other such real, well documented atrocities followed. Many believe the Chinese version of the same thing was even worse, but at least they killed quickly, if at a somewhat higher cost in bullets.

This was worse than the Mongols, worse than the Shoganate wars, or the 100 years war, worse than the black plague, worse than Rome, worse than black or white slavery, worse than anything.

Over the course of most of a century, these thugs (socialists, leftists, agrarian reformers, progressives, communists, take your pick) killed almost 100 million people, taking care to kill the smartest first, thus decapitating the culture. Meanwhile, the elite waxed fat, until they collapsed from an excess of murders, leaving Kaganovich's successors to shift smoothly into organized crime in Russia, Coney Island, or Tel Aviv.

How could anyone support Communism with this history?

Roosevelt could not have been elected governor, hence could not have later been president, without the large Communist party in NY, which gave him 1/3 of his votes. Communists formed a big part of both his state government and his national government.

Given that Europe was essentially out of the depression by 1936, by the usual means of stimulus and tax cuts, which were not tried here, it is clear that FDR prolonged the depression in the US to assure that he and his leftist allies could survive politically. His miserable maneuverings to get us into WW II by secret anti-Japanese maneuvers (see Stennit, "Day of Deceit") no doubt had the same intention, and achieved its objective at the cost of 50 million dead. Unquestionably, without the US in the war, The Soviet Union would have fallen to Hitler, particularly given that Stalin had had the GRU murder all its top generals, in 1938.

So, when McCarthy went after these criminals, who had indeed been protected actively by both FDR and HST, he was fighting evil incarnate. They were real communists, whose job here, in addition to spying, was to make excuses for Soviet mass-murder, in conjunction with the leftist media, including the NY Times, as Coulter so accurately points out, in enough detail to convince anyone who actually reads her book.

I suggest that those who commented sympathetically to the leftist agenda, and against McCarthy, reconsider their position. The slander against him then was real, done by real murderers and their paid and unpaid American accomplices. The slander against him today is simply the dying whimpers of a dead philosophy, which will, God willing, stay dead.








Stephen Kriz - 8/15/2003


Josh:

Like so many conservatives (e.g. Jimmy Swaggart, Bob Barr, Gary Bauer), who speak out against what they view as "deviate sexual behavior", while themselves have unusual sexual inclinations, McCarthy railed against homosexuality and was apparently attracted to members of his own gender. Hank Greenspun published an article in the Las Vegas Sun on October 25th, 1952 that provided much of the evidence "outing" Mr. McCarthy. In the article, Mr. Greenspun wrote, "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."

Here are some links for further perusal:


http://www.healthekids.net/course.phtml?course_id=715

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

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn219/theghost.html

While I have no personal objection to consensual homosexual activity and could care less about who Joseph McCarthy had sex with, I view this as just one more example of the hypocrisy and double standards that exemplify conservatives in America.

Regards,

Stephen Kriz


Stephen Kriz - 8/15/2003


Josh:

The mock Greek historian has an obvious learning diability and cannot read properly. Ignore him. I do.

SK


Jesse Lamovsky - 8/15/2003

"repressed homosexual urges"? Is Mr. Kriz party to dalliances between Tailgunner Joe and Roy Cohn that perhaps we don't know about?


Jesse Lamovsky - 8/15/2003

"repressed homosexual urges


Jesse Lamovsky - 8/15/2003

Ann Coulter is a Republican attack dog, nothing more. She's not part of any grand conservative tradition. And as for the "fundamentalist conservativism" being ascendant, as Jennifer Bell claims- how does that explain the takeover of the Bush Administration and mainstream conservative publications like the National Review by neo-conservatives, many of whom are former Democrats, and some of whom (David Horowitz; Stephen Schwartz) are former Trotskyites? If "fundamentalist conservatives" are in the Republican saddle, why does President Bush support affirmative action (mealy-mouthed statements aside) and open borders? Why was it that some of the most strident attacks on Trent Lott came from the right, from people like William Safire and Charles Krauthammer? Mainstream conservatives are so poorly disposed toward the so-called fundamentalists that David "Axis of Evil" Frum tried to read them out of the movement altogether a few months back.

Paleoconservatives- presumably the "fundamentalists" Mr. Clanton refers to- haven't held positions of real power since just after World War II. They did not "come to office if not to power with the help of McCarthy in the three years after 1950"- just the opposite. Dwight Eisenhower's nomination at the 1952 convention, in place of old-time conservative icon Robert Taft, cast the paleos into the political wilderness. It was Republicans like Eisenhower and Joseph Welch who exposed McCarthy as a fraud, and broke his power. It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and made possible the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. It was a Republican President, Richard Nixon, who took the country all the way off the gold standard. Since 1952, the Republican party, compromising on the New Deal, on civil rights, on big government, on welfare, has moved steadily to the left. I can appreciate that Mr. Clanton and Jennifer Bell are not conservatives- it's a free country. But before they pontificate on the dynamics of the conservative movement post-WWII, they ought to do some research first.




Herodotus - 8/14/2003

Kriz is prone to these kinds of outbursts. He believed that some of the defense department officials, Wolfowitz in particular I think, had some kind of sexual attraction towards war and weapons of mass destruction. He also is on record here as saying that Bush was worse than Hitler, so I don't think many of us pay him much mind. Don't forget, peace is the only way!


F.H.Thomas - 8/14/2003

Thanks to all for an interesting exchange of ideas.

When myths, pushed by one powerful elite or another, are repeated unquestioningly by syncophatic historians, such as some in this otherwise congenial group, more than the truth is lost.

The myths are taken by the weak-minded as fact, and acted upon, and wars and other calamities follow which usually benefit the elites. Witness WW I, II, etc, borne in on a tapestry of lies.

Cui bono?

Thucidides, whom I mentioned above, saw a 30-year devastation of the Peleponesis resulting from oft-repeated myths, and to his credit, he damned the lying "historians" who helped create it. Should we not do the same? That is rather what Coulter suggests.

Contrary to "historians"' myths, McCarthy was a beloved Senator who sought to publicize his country's infiltration by communist spies. He spoke calmly, contrary to his bolshie adversaries, who always screamed, and he hit the nail on the head.

The only ones who disagreed in 45 and 46 were Roosevelt's top cronies, most, like Harry Hopkins and Vice President Wallace, outright Socialists, and highly sympathetic to Communism.

Their minions hired entire cadres of Soviet agents down to the third level at State, and almost as deep as that at War, hence the three levels I mentioned. Coulter names all three. Coulter, a passionate and effective advocate, deserves much credit for telling this story straight.

As far as the gratituous, lunge-for-the-throat, attack-dog propensities of some, when presented with a calm argument contrary to their own, I suppose they would have us believe that Marx and Engles, Trotsky and Kaganovich, Rosenberg and Gold, were really hispanic.


Bill Heuisler - 8/14/2003

Professor Fuentez,
First of all, using terms like Red Scare and Red Menace are significant and not interchangable in the context of Coulter's book. The first as modern college discipline implies skepticism the way saying Cancer Scare rather than Cancer Menace would diminish the known reality of the disease.

Second, your odd defense of Service seems out-of-place since his arrest and disloyal act is public record. That being said, the name-game does not impress: the original list was not identified by name in the W. Va. speech, nor in the open Senate. The names were identified in a letter to Committee Chairman Tydings along with comments like "...he furnished material to a known Soviet espionage agent...". Senator Tydings released the names. Haynes has stated often that many of the people who cooperated with Soviet spy rings were not members of CPUSA for various reasons, but were actively sympathetic to the Soviet cause. And he has often mentioned another book on further Venona releases.

Coulter doesn't contradict (Slander to Treason) if you posit the accusations were either true or thought to be true at the time (unlike accusations of lynching or Nazi in Dem. name-calling).

Which brings us to your doubt that Venona info was shared with McCarthy. Not knowing any "primary source that substantiates" such Venona relationship is meaningless. The Primary Source is dead and JEH's primary source, Robert Lamphere, wrote "The FBI, KGB War in 1986 (Random House) without even hinting about his vast sources including Venona. Hoover most probably monitored Joe as "instrument of policy" without revealing his sources. Ask yourself. With what you know about Hoover - add close connection to McCarthy - can you imagine the Director allowing disprovable falsehoods to damage his well-known anti-Communist policies?

Lastly, why try to resuscitate Lattimore? He was sympathetic to the USSR and China (see my other post with quotes etc.)and his stated policies helped World Communism. You know the point of Coulter's book is the essential accuracy of McCarthy's charges.

Venona is a work in progress. Those who defended Hiss and Rosenberg for fifty years fight another Lost Cause. Why bother, Professor? Why defend the Services and Lattimores? Why stake a reputation on such unstable deceivers?
Bill Heuisler


Josh Greenland - 8/14/2003

How many people read Coulter? I saw on Ralph Luker's blog a week or two ago that Coulter's book sale numbers have been pushed up by the big block buying of rightwing organizations.


Josh Greenland - 8/14/2003

Stephen,
Where did you hear or read that Joseph McCarthy had "repressed homosexual urges"?


Anthony Fuentez - 8/14/2003

While I am glad that my article has provoked numerous responses, I myself feel the need to respond to some of them to further stimulate reasonable historical discussion as well as for humanitarian reasons (apparently my article turned someone's stomach). First of all, I do not consider myself an ideologue. Nor would I judge someone to be one based on one article. I have a diverse range of opinions on politics and historical subjects, including the mid-century "red scare" or "red menace" or whatever you want to call it, and if you knew me you would be hard pressed to classify me.
And even though I don't have to prove it, I can demonstrate it by acknowledging sound criticism (which ideologues do not do). Of course I acknowledge the existence of the Venona transcripts as documented in Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes' book Venona. I was in fact referring to Venona when I said "evidence has emerged decades later." To be more clear, I should have added "in the form of the Venona transcripts." Furthermore, I should have been more specific by saying "evidence has publicly emerged decades later" (though this is what I meant by "emerged"), for it is true that many of the Soviet cables were decoded in the mid-forties. The lack of these particular clarifications were not intended to mislead, and even making them now does not, I believe, change my basic arguments.
As for my arguments, I notice that in the responses a significant part of my article goes uncontested. I point out the contradiction between Coulter's denunciation of politically-correct insinuations of racism, sexism, Nazism, fascism, etc. in her previous book Slander and her lack of denunciation of McCarthy's insinuations of Communism in her new book Treason. Was this ideological of me to point out this contradiction? I believe that false or unsubstantiated insinuations of ideological deviancy, as Coulter does at least when it comes to the left's insinuations against the right, are deserving of condemnation. Even at this very moment, these kinds of insinuations are being made in American politics. For example, what does Arnold Schwarzenegger's father's politics have to do with his? Is he a Nazi because his father was? So he voted for Prop. 187. Does that make him anti-Hispanic and racist, as I have heard some people charge, or is he just against illegal immigration? These kinds of insinuations should be rejected. And if McCarthy can't be criticized for his derogatory insinuations, he can't be criticized for anything.
My argument that McCarthy slandered entire insitutions is also uncontested. I mentioned only three examples, including his reference to the Democratic Party as the "Commiecrat" party. If someone referred to the Republican Party as the "RepubliKKKan" party, it would be right for every fair-minded and civil American to condemn such a person. Such rhetoric creates the "egg-throwing" climate that Coulter believes, at least in her book Slander, chills free expression and discourages people from participating in the democratic process.
My argument that McCarthy made false or unsubstantiated accusations of Communism against certain individuals is contested, mainly by arguing that I do not acknowledge the evidence in Venona. In response to this argument, I would like to make two points. First of all, where in the list of Soviet agents at the back of Klehr and Haynes' book Venona are the following names: Dorothy Kenyon, Haldore Hanson, Philip Jessup, Frederick Schuman, Harlow Shapley, or John Stewart Service (a quick point about Service: it is true that he was arrested for leaking classified documents in the mid-forties, but even Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh, two historians Coulter admires, in their excellent book on the Amerasia case, argue that Service was not a Communist nor did he intend to commit espionage for the Soviet Union)? Where is Owen Lattimore, the "top Russian spy?" Where is Drew Pearson, the so-called "Moscow-directed character assassin?" For that matter, where is David Lloyd or Anna Rosenberg, two names I did not mention and who also were smeared by McCarthy early in his career? This counter-argument based on Venona fails to confront head-on my most basic argument that McCarthy falsely or recklessly charged some individuals with being Communists and that Coulter is mistaken when she says that everything traditionally taught about McCarthy is an "Orwellian fraud" and a "hegemonic lie."
A second point I would like to make is that I seriously doubt that McCarthy had access to Venona-based information, even in light of his relationship with J. Edgar Hoover. No historian I know makes this claim. Nor do I know of any primary source that substantiates it. Moreover, certain facts make this claim implausible. First, McCarthy lacked self-restraint, and it seems out of character for him to have withheld damning information. Second, Hoover was very shrewd, and it seems out of character for him to have given such sensitive information to someone like McCarthy, who he recognized lacked restraint. Third, if Hoover did have so much confidence in McCarthy that he was willing to trust him with such sensitive information why did he eventually sever his ties with him? Fourth, every historian I know believes that McCarthy based his initial charges against State Department employees on a letter written by Secretary of State Dean Acheson and "the Lee list," a set of personnel files compiled by a House subcommittee in the early days of the federal loyalty-security program. Finally, if McCarthy had Venona-based info, why would he "stand or fall" on the basis of his charges against Owen Lattimore, who even Coulter admits does not appear in any of the decoded Soviet cables (though she holds out hope that he's in there somewhere)? Couldn't he have picked a better case to stand or fall on?
But even assuming for the sake of argument that McCarthy had access to Venona-based information, I again ask, where are the names in Venona that I mention in my article? Furthermore, does Venona justify his insinuations against Acheson, Stevenson, Marshall, and numerous reporters? Does it justify his smears of the Democratic Party, the Milwaukee Journal, and Time magazine? Does it justify his attacks against other individuals and institutions that I did not mention in my article for the sake of brevity?
If you think it does, then I guess we must agree to disagree.


NYGuy - 8/14/2003

Interesting thread. Since Horowitz knew communism first hand he is an expert on communism and the entire period. It is worthwhile to read what he has to say about the period having known those who were members of the communist party in America.

“The fact is that if so many liberals and Democrats had not covered so assiduously for Communists and Soviet spies like Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, there would have been no “McCarthy Era” -- no wave of loyalty oaths and no congressional investigations. Derelictions like Roosevelt’s, the sense of insecurity created when the public realized that there was an enemy within who had thoroughly penetrated the Democratic Party and which was indeed controlled by the Kremlin, and the refusal of Democratic leaders to take the threat as seriously as they should have -- created the demand for investigations and made the exploits of demagogues like McCarthy inevitable.”


“The McCarthy Era has been written into college and high school curriculums and even government history standards as a time of “witch-hunts” instead of a time of fifth column treason for the same reason. Coulter is right to emphasize this point. The opening of the Soviet archives and the release of the Venona decrypts have established beyond any reasonable doubt that McCarthy’s so-called victims – with few exceptions (James Wechsler would be one) -- were people who either served the intelligence agencies of the biggest mass murderer in history or supported the despotic empire he built, or were fellow-travelers of the same. The remedy for preventing such injustices as occurred through the hearings of McCarthy’s subcommittee and the House Committee on Un-American Activities would be to close congressional hearings to the public. But no one to my knowledge – liberal or otherwise -- has ever proposed this.”

It also appears that Mr. Horowitz believes the communist threat is alive and well and living comfortably on campus

Perhaps that is why Mr. Fuentez, a Ph.D. candidate, American History, University of Pennsylvania.. can feel so comfortable with his introduction:

“It used to be taken for granted that Senator Joseph R. McCarthy is one of the great villains of American history. His crime always has been assumed to be his introduction into American politics of the practice of "McCarthyism" in the midst of the campaign of the late forties and early fifties to root out the influence of the Communist Party in American institutions. Though a complex phenomenon, the central feature of McCarthyism was a rhetorical style that entailed false or unsubstantiated accusations or insinuations of Communism.”


Stephen Kriz - 8/14/2003


Joseph McCarthy was a paranoid nutball with repressed homosexual urges that made him crazier than a bedbug. Any apologist for this piece of ambulatory slime is slime themselves - Witness, Ms. Coulter.

Nuff said.


Ralph E. Luker - 8/14/2003

My drivel in response to yours: "YES, she's wrong. The Bush administration has yet to demonstrate that any vital American interest was at stake in Iraq." It's never drivel to object to the bigoted assumptions behind another person's post. But I tire of this: be an angel, buy a ton of Coulter's book; Al Franken's is beating hers in sales and its a piece of junk, too.


Bill Heuisler - 8/14/2003

Ralph,
Get a grip. Read your own posts; you never asked me a question. Your drivel about some poster is meaningless and you know it.

This article is about O'Reilly's stupid mistake, blaming the Trumbo inquiry on McCarthy and not knowing HUAC was Congress and not the Senate and more than a year before McCarthy's Committee held hearings. This article pretends the Venona Papers didn't expose any traitors. And Fuentez calls himself a historian.

Also, Coulter says many Liberals defend Communists like Hiss and the Rosenbergs until the bitter end - even after damning facts come to light. Coulter says Democrats have become the Party of Liberals - the Party of appeasement, surrender, quagmire, the UN, World Court, Kyoto, the Party that wants to placate Castro, Qadaffi, Chirac and Hussein. When US national interests are not at stake, the Dems slaughter Serbs and Sudanese watchmen, but if the national interest is at stake, Dems tend to obstruct, object and finally many (McDermott?) will act against the national interest in favor of tyrants. Is she wrong?
Bill Heuisler


Ralph E. Luker - 8/13/2003

Bill, You've never seen me whine about anything and you refused to answer my questions. Too bad ... You deserve better allies than Thomas.


Bill Heuisler - 8/13/2003

Ralph,
Get back to the subject of Fuentez's article. Who gave you the right to demand anything of me? Tell me you're not turning into a typical Liberal: whine and change the subject when you're wrong on the facts. I'm not the slightest bit interested in your - or anybody else's - opinion on the ethnicity of anyone.
Bill Heuisler


Lewis L. Gould - 8/13/2003

Donald Ritchie of the Senate Historical Office has an interesting article about McCarthy and his anticommunist hearing records in the August 2003 Organization of American Historians Newsletter, pp. 1, 6. It speaks to the issue of sources for this period with links to the materials he mentions.


Jennifer Bell - 8/13/2003

Mr. Clanton's assessment is accurate in all respects except, I fear, his assertion that this brand of conservatism - which really owes more to the traditional vision of Southern Democrats than the Republican party of Lincoln and TR - climaxed in 1994. It is in the ascendant at present, saved by the War on Terrorism from being exposed for the economic and social trainwreck that it has been for the nation. For an interesting assessment of this "Southernization" of American culture and politics, see Bruce Schulman's new book on the Seventies.


Ralph E. Luker - 8/13/2003

You explicitely refuse to repudiate Thomas's anti-semitism and McCarthyite accusations about the top three levels of the State Department? No need to ignore the bigotry and smears perpetrated by your allies, Bill.


Bill Heuisler - 8/13/2003

Mr. Clanton.
Okay, now we know your opinions - at length. What about facts?
You wrote of Ann Coulter's "outrageous nonsense". Why not give us all an example and your refutation? Otherwise your opinions are...well, just opinions.
Bill Heuisler


Bill Heuisler - 8/13/2003

Ralph,
You wrote, Schwartz's essay on Venona showed "greater interest in internecine warfare on the left than in espionage." Schwartz article was replete with generalization and self-pity and not much faith should be placed in his viewpoint. Reasons?

The Venona intercepts were between Moscow and Lend-Lease, or AMTORG, or diplomats or KGB, or GRU. Published transcripts of the decodings show code-names for Roosevelt, Rosenberg, KGB agents like Elizabeth Bently and Boris Moros and Departments of State and War. Millions of dollars were referred as transmitted to various people at different levels. To imagine these names, places and dollars were used to eradicate Trotskyites is absurd.

Don't believe me: Look up Venona or Arlington Hall or Robert Lamphere or General Carter Clarke or Meredith Gardner and you will see how ridiculous these Coulter-bashers really are.
Bill Heuisler


Bill Heuisler - 8/13/2003

Dusan Djordjevich,
Be fair to Fuentez? Why? Fuentez misrepresents Coulter.

Semantics cannot replace fact. Fuentez's premise is deliberately deceptive by assuming facts not in evidence and then drawing convenient conclusions. His summary of Coulter's argument is false. He writes, "evidence has emerged decades later". Not true. Arlington Hall began decoding the Soviet intercepts from Moscow in 1946. The FBI was immediately notified and Hoover was in close contact with McCarthy during hearings on security risks in government - Coulter's main postulate. Research NSA on Venona.

Venona has been active since the mid-forties. Venona information was given directly from analysts to FBI Director Hoover by Agent Robert Lamphere. Coulter's thesis is based on information from Venona being known during the hearings. Does Fuentez propose the information wasn't known? Wasn't used? No, he tries to confuse.
Denying Venona is nearly as troubling as defending that denial.
Bill Heuisler


Ralph E. Luker - 8/13/2003

Bill,
Of course, you are technically correct that Fuentez does not specifically refer to the Verona documents, but only to the opening of the KGB archives. As an earlier essay on HNN demonstrated, much in what has been released in the Verona documents shows greater interest in internecine warfare on the left than in espionage. The Verona project continues and we will learn more from both it and the KGB archives, but we will learn it, not from popular exploiters like Ann Coulter, but from careful scholarship. I was re-assured by your refusal to endorse F. H. Thomas's McCarthyite accusations, but it would be helpful if you specifically repudiated them.


Gene Clanton - 8/13/2003

Thanks to Anthony Fuentez for taking time to correct some of the outrageous nonsense being put on the airwaves by Ann Coulter. However, one shouldn't expect O'Reilly or any of the other neo-conservatives to keep her honest. They are, afterall, all part of a huge, ahistorical rightwing tidal wave that has been growing in strength since the reactionary coalition emerged on the national stage,in a big way, first with what has been called "Reaganism," then climaxing with the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994.

We need to understand that the persausion called "McCarthyism" has always been more than just a political style and mode of attack. Historian Earl Latham described it best: "The fundamentalist conservatism that McCarthy served has been an enduring aspect of the American system since the Civil War and has not been dissipated. It believes with profound faith in free enterprise, reacts to symbols that seem to threaten it, is suspicious of welfarism and other social reform, tends to stand pat, and is moved only by exigency. The stronghold of this faith in the Republican party has been centered in the Middle and Rocky Mountain West [within the Democratic party, the South] and it has not been satisfied with the moderate conservatism of the eastern states. It regards itself as the heart and soul of the Republican party, uncorrupted by the liberalism that has softened the eastern wing, and is determined to recover the conservative spirit of the 1920's and earlier times. It is pre-New Deal in its mentality. It came to office if not to power with the help of McCarthy in the three years after 1950, and may some time surge in an effort to hold time still, and perhaps even turn it back a little." Latham wrote those words in 1966 and he was truly prophetic: The reactionary coalition that has become a fixture of American politics since the early 1980s has indeed achieved a kind of apotheosis, albeit burlesque, in history as conceived by Ann Coulter. I'm afraid we will in fact be able to measure the degree of our nation's ignorance of its own history by the degree to which her interpretation of the eponym achieves a degree of respectability.


Bill Heuisler - 8/13/2003

Mr. Rifkin,
How do such delusions exist in this Age of Information? Fever-dreams and anti-McCarthy wishes don't count on a History Site. Research is simple in libraries or search engines. The Venona program has been existence for over fifty years. Decoding began in 1946 - is still being released - and over 300 Americans have been identified as Soviet agents for Stalin's Worker's Paradise.

Over 2200 messages between Moscow and trade reps, diplomats, KGB and GRU Residencies have been decoded since 1946 by the Venona program based in Arlington Hall. An analyst named Meredith Gardner broke the code in the summer of 1946 and General Carter Clarke contacted the FBI. Agent Robert Lamphere then worked full-time with Arlington Hall analysts and reported to FBI Director Hoover. Hoover worked closely with McCarthy, etc, etc.

Stop dreaming. Look up information or appear empty-headed.
Bill Heuisler


Dusan Djordjevich - 8/13/2003

Bill Heuisler writes:

"Fuentez refers to Soviet Archives and then utilizes a clumsy deception:
"evidence emerged decades later that proved some of his charges to be true or, if it hasn’t yet, may still emerge to substantiate his remaining charges."

Imagine that verbiage in a courtroom, Ralph. This guy's weird."

At least be fair enough not to attack the guy by taking his words out of context. In context, the phrase is less awkward; more important, it is not Fuentez's own description of the state of the historical evidence, but a summary of Coulter's argument. What he wrote was:

"Besides reinterpreting McCarthy's own words, another method Coulter uses to whitewash the most damning facts about McCarthy is to argue either that evidence has emerged decades later proving his charges to be true or that if no evidence has yet emerged it still may at some future date. This argument is so Orwellian (to use a favorite adjective of Coulter's) that it deserves careful consideration. What Coulter is essentially saying is that even though McCarthy may have made charges initially without foundation, he should not be condemned because evidence emerged decades later that proved some of his charges to be true or, if it hasn’t yet, may still emerge to substantiate his remaining charges."


Bill Heuisler - 8/13/2003

Ralph,
To use your words...
"if you read the article more carefully"
...you'll find the author never once mentions the Venona Papers. Not once, Ralph. That's like discussing Egyptian history without mentioning the Rosetta Stone. The quality of Coulter bashers has sunk to its nadir with this so-called historian. I usually enjoy Primal Screeches from Leftists using Kindergarten hear-say-history, but, when serious historians weigh in to defend barely literate, ahistoric garbage they just look bad.

Fuentez mentions Red Scare twice, he admits McCarthy questioned many Communists, but ignored supporting evidence showing his Scare was actually an immense conspiracy. Fuentez refers to Soviet Archives and then utilizes a clumsy deception:
"evidence emerged decades later that proved some of his charges to be true or, if it hasn’t yet, may still emerge to substantiate his remaining charges."

Imagine that verbiage in a courtroom, Ralph. This guy's weird.
He implies the decoding of Soviet messages did not begin in 1946 and pretends Hiss was only accused. Embarrassing. Fuentez is a Leftist apologist pretending to be a historian. And he's seeking a PHD? You should be outraged rather than defensive.
Bill Heuisler



Debra - 8/13/2003

All points made about Coulter's absurd assertions are well taken. But the bigger question is how is this info going to be disseminated to the larger public? How many people read HNN???


Stephen Rifkin - 8/13/2003

Verona transcripts were never decoded at the time in fact have not been decoded to this day. So whatever their merit, McCarthy couldn't have known more than a vague impression of what was or was not in them. In other words, no different from wild vapid claims you read in the internet today.

Moreover what we do know of Verona is highly specific and narrow and concerns a handful of people all more or less known to one another and performing a specific and directed task. We've seen spy cases like this since then such as the Walker family.


monica - 8/13/2003

What about Nixon's former aide, John Dean, who said Nixon once bragged to him about "creating" the evidence (e.g. typewriter) that was used to convict Hiss? Nixon said he & his cronies literally built the typewriter.


Ralph E. Luker - 8/13/2003

Mr. Thomas,
If you read the article more carefully, you'll see that its author recognizes the importance of the Venona Documents in revealing Communist spy efforts. Thus your sentence: "If the Venona and KGB file revelations do not tell the tale of who the traitors were, then you refuse to know." tells us that you either did not read the article or that, having read it, you did not understand what you read.
Your subsequent two sentences: "As far as the state department is concerned, not just 57, but the entire top 3 layers were outright communist agents or co-opted by them. Unfortunately, the American Jewish community, not just the Rosenbergs, was in this up to its hips." include both an unsubstantiated accusation and evidence of your blind bigotry.
I do not know whether to prescribe medication, education, or psychiatric treatment for your condition.


John Doe - 8/13/2003

The investigation of allegations of Communists in positions of influence in the State Department is a legitimate subject of the use of the Congressional investigatory powers, but McCarthy went far beyond that. Check out the recently released transcripts of hearings of his committee. You'll come across such gems as Roy Cohn's interrogation of an obscure writer named Jerre Mangione based primarily on Mangione's brief association with the John Reed Club 20 years before, when he was a young man just out of college:


Mr. Cohn. You concede that you were a member of certain
organizations which turned out to be Communist friends(sic -presumably should be "fronts") , and you
were in the League of American Writers, and you were in
frequent attendance at the John Reed Club?
Mr. Mangione. No, I was not.
Mr. Cohn. How many times did you attend the meetings of the
John Reed Club?
Mr. Mangione. About five or six times.
Mr. Cohn. That is a lot.
Mr. Mangione. Over a two year period.
Mr. Cohn. That is a lot. I think once is a lot.

What has this got to do with the legitimate functions of Congress?

And there is much more, including the questioning of composer Aaron Copland (perhaps he was going to turn over the manuscript of Appalachian Spring to the KGB).


Thousands of pages of this stuff at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate12cp107.html


I remember I once read an account of a fellow who had, as a 16 year old boy in the mid-1930s, joined the Young Communist League "to meet girls". His involvement with Communism ended before his 21st birthday. In the early 1950s, married and with a family, he lived in terror that his adolescent activites would be discovered by one of the various legislative committees investigating Communism and that he would become unemployable (fortunately his secret never surfaced.)


F.H. Thomas - 8/12/2003

Your article is greatly weakened by apologizing for people who are now conclusively known to have been paid, active communist agents. (i.e. traitors) If the Venona and KGB file revelations do not tell the tale of who the traitors were, then you refuse to know. As far as the state department is concerned, not just 57, but the entire top 3 layers were outright communist agents or co-opted by them. Unfortunately, the American Jewish community, not just the Rosenbergs, was in this up to its hips. Remember Thucidides: historians exist not to pander politically popular myths, but to create "a work of lasting value".


Bill Maher - 8/12/2003



McCarthy was basically a thug. The key point about the "nightmare decade" (Fred Cook), however, is from Earl Latham: "Without the Alger Hiss case" the controversy that followed "might have been a much tamer affair, and the Communist issue somewhat more tractable." William Manchester, hardly a defender of McCarthy, understood the significance of Igor Gouzenko: "To comprehend the enormity of what began happening" in the United States, "imagine a large household whose children insist that they are pursued by a bogeyman. Others in the family repeatedly assure them that there is no such thing. Then one child flings open a closet door and out steps a real bogeyman, ten feet tall and all teeth." And Gouzenko would lead to Alger Hiss. Enter McCarthy.


Dan - 8/12/2003

Mr. Heuisler is definitely the latter.

Just one example:

You identify Owen Lattimore as an "expert on the Far East" and say there was no evidence against him except an, "ex-Communist named Louis Budenz who himself had never met Lattimore and offered only hearsay."

So far, accurate.

That claim is deceptive.

An unsupported assertion, thus:

Louis Budenz joined the CPUSA in 1935 and rose to become editor of the US Daily Worker. His knowledge was extensive and his evidence helped convict Eugene Dennis and in the deportation of ten other leaders of CPUSA. He also testified against Hiss. To pretend Budenz wasn't knowledgable misleads your readers.

There is no statement, real or implied saying Budenz "wasn't knowledgable." The fact that he helped convict other people is truly a red herring, having ZERO attributed connection with Lattimore.

I guess when you agree with the current administration (i. e., Republicans) facts have no meaning.

Dan


Bill Heuisler - 8/12/2003

Professor Fuentez,
Your attempt to re-denigrate McCarthy by denigrating Coulter fails because you skip lightly over too many facts and fail to delve deep enough into too many people.

Your last point about Coulter's claims on McCarthy is wrong:
You write, "evidence emerged decades later..." and you are wrong. The Soviet communications were decoded in 1946. Hoover was notified immediately and the FBI Director remained in close contact with McCarthy during the hearings. McCarthy did not operate in the dark and did not accuse wildly. Hoover made sure of that in spite of the unfortunate circumstance that they could not use the decoded information in court at the time.

John Stewart Service is an example of your bias. You sluff him off as an innocent accused, but Service was a foreign Service Officer arrested for passing classified documents to Communist agent, Philip Jaffe. Did you forget that information Professor?

The O'Reilly incident proves public ignorance, you're right, but why not carry the thought forward? HUAC may have been reckless with Trumbo, but McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC. Coulter's book has already educated Bill O'Reilly. What about you, sir?

You identify Owen Lattimore as an "expert on the Far East" and say there was no evidence against him except an, "ex-Communist named Louis Budenz who himself had never met Lattimore and offered only hearsay."
That claim is deceptive.
Louis Budenz joined the CPUSA in 1935 and rose to become editor of the US Daily Worker. His knowledge was extensive and his evidence helped convict Eugene Dennis and in the deportation of ten other leaders of CPUSA. He also testified against Hiss. To pretend Budenz wasn't knowledgable misleads your readers.

The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee declared in 1952,
"Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy." This Senate subcommittee had nothing to do with McCarthy.

Lattimore's now public memo to the Executive Director of the Institute for Pacific Relations states his opinion plainly, "For the USSR - back their international policy in general, but without using their slogans and above all without giving them or anybody else the impression of subservience."

Kolyma, in Eastern Siberia was a system of prison work-camps four times the size of France. The death rate was as high as 50% and as many as 3,000,000 prisoners died in the camp system according to Solzhenitsyn and new information from Ex-KGB General Oleg Kalugin. Owen Lattimore visited Kolyma in the summer of 1944 as an aide to Henry Wallace. He wrote a glowing report on the camp and on its Chief Warden, Commandant Nikishov for the National Geographic Magazine. Lattimore compared Kolyma to a combination of the Hudson's Bay Company and the TVA. He described Nikishov as, "having a trained and sensitive interest in art and music and also a deep sense of civic responsibility."

A historian of mid-century "red scare"? Don't you mean Red Menace? But the closed minded course title tells the story: You teach Navasky and ignore Conquest and Solzhenitsyn. You describe Alger Hiss as "accused of being a Communist and a Soviet spy" after Venona Papers proved his guilt? Historian or ideologue? Having you as a critic merely enhances Ann Coulter's thesis.
Bill Heuisler


K.R. Baylor - 8/11/2003

This is in response to the gaping hole Mr. Fuentez left in his argument. Coulter argues in her book "Treason"--which Mr. Fuentez appears not to have read--that McCarthy's bombastic rhetoric about Communists infiltrating high-level State Department and other executive branch offices was proven correct when the Venona transcripts of Soviet spy messages were released in 1993-95. There were enough Communists in high-level gov't positions sending U.S. secrets to Moscow to prove a serious and fortunately non-fatal risk to the United States--the intelligence community just couldn't release anything as to not burn their valuable intelligence coup. To give these secrets to a public promoter like McCarthy would have been unthinkable.

In essence, McCarthy was playing on hunches he had or received from others in the gov't that he couldn't prove in a court of law, but history ultimately proved him right. Should he through the Subcmte on Investigations and the House through HUAC used a different and less accusatory method of questioning witnesses? Absolutely. But was the Left complicent in the cover-up? Coulter argues yes, but ultimately "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy's wild accusations in Wheeling and elsewhere about "Communists infiltrating the U.S. Government" was much more accurate than the un-American Left ever wanted--or wants--to let on.