JOE MCCARTHY INVENTED THE INTERNET ... Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter Dot Com ^ | 12 Dec 2007 | Ann Coulter

[unspun]

Huh.

[3catsanadog]

Gawdamighty, that woman can score ponts.

I don't understand. What are "ponts"?

Is that supposed to be "points"?

(Could be the newest word for the Official Freeplish Dictionary.)

i.e. stuned

[Hot Tabasco]

Wellllllllll, aren't you the lucky one Ronnie?

(just checked out your page....LOL!)

[RonDog]

From www.anncoulter.com:

JOE MCCARTHY INVENTED THE INTERNET
by Ann Coulter
December 12, 2007

The October 2007 Vanity Fair had a long, gaseous article explaining how the pro-Bush bias of the mainstream media cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election. (For you kids out there too young to remember, Al Gore is a vaguely gay, morbidly obese former Clinton administration official who raised campaign cash from Buddhist monks and claimed he invented the Internet.)

Meanwhile, Republicans can barely remember that just a few years ago, former Clinton crony and current Hillary adviser Sandy Berger stuffed top-secret national security documents in his pants, snuck them out of the National Archives and destroyed them.

But liberals are still fighting the 2000 presidential election -- if only to take a break from fighting the 1973 Chilean coup by Augusto Pinochet. They never rest, they never give up, they never stop lying. Liberals lie and lie and lie and then, the moment conservatives respond, they shout: OLD NEWS!

By my rough estimate, there have been one zillion books, movies, plays, allegories, interpretive dances and limericks about the Dark Night of Fascism Under Joe McCarthy (DNFUJM).

The anti-McCarthy oeuvre has zippy titles, such as "The Nightmare Decade: The Life and Times of Senator Joe McCarthy," "Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism: The Hate That Haunts America" and "How I, Al Gore, Stopped Joe McCarthy's Hate Campaign" -- although that last one may have been made up during the 2000 campaign by a hostile media.

Fifty years later, the only true history book ever written about McCarthy has finally been released: M. Stanton Evans' Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies . Liberals have responded with vicious attacks and –- naturally -- claims the book merely recites "old news."

So I think I'm entitled to at least a few columns on the book that finally tells the truth about the DNFUJM.

"Historian" Ronald Radosh's slanderous attack on Evans' book in the Dec. 17 National Review delusionally claims that Evans used Radosh's own crappy book, "The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism," as a primary, uncredited source for "Blacklisted by History."

It is now painfully clear that Radosh was the Yoko Ono of that collaboration. Radosh's co-author, Harvey Klehr, at least went on to write wonderful, scathing accounts of liberal collaboration with communism, including Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America as well as one of the greatest books ever written, In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage.

Consequently, I shall now refer to Klehr's only bad book as "Radosh's book."

Here is a complete summary of Radosh's book on Amerasia: Liberals were wrong -- but so were right-wingers! Now let's talk some more about the failings of right-wingers.

Radosh's book hints at the fact that John Stewart Service, U.S. diplomat and communist collaborator, connived to turn over China to Mao Zedong and passed hundreds of pages of classified government documents to Soviet spies working at the magazine "Amerasia." (Or as Radosh put it, liberals whose careers "suggested" they were Soviet spies.)

Radosh then massages these facts to death until the whole story is whittled away to nothing. This allows Radosh to turn to the real knaves of the story: right-wingers.

Not surprisingly, a few years after the release of Radosh's snoozefest of a book, The New York Times' obituary on John Stewart Service could say that Service "filed prescient reports" from China on the weakness and corruption of Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists -- who happened to be our allies, under siege from Mao Zedong's Communists.

As Evans' book makes eminently clear, this is like saying: "John Hinckley wrote prescient reports that Reagan would be shot."

Although it is possible, with a great deal of work, to slog through Radosh's endless "on the one hand, on the other hand" disquisitions in order to glean an occasional fact from his Amerasia book -- presumably inserted by his co-author Klehr -- it is not possible to believe that Evans got a single comma from Radosh's book.

Radosh's boast is a bit like claiming that Martin Scorcese's film "The Last Temptation of Christ" was a primary, uncredited source for the authors of the holy Bible.

Evans' copiously footnoted book makes clear that his Amerasia information comes directly from the FBI's files. Not only that, Evans has been writing about the FBI files on Amerasia since at least 10 years before Radosh's book.

Among the reasons we know this is from Radosh's own book -- published in 1996 -- in which Radosh attacks Evans by name for an article Evans wrote about the FBI's Amerasia file in Human Events -- in 1986. Radosh's book is so bad, apparently even he can't bear to read it.

So it takes a special sort of fabulist to write, as Radosh does in National Review: "Full disclosure: Harvey Klehr and I are co-authors of 'The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism,' a book from which Evans takes virtually all of his material and which he does not acknowledge."

If Evans had done that, instead of an exciting book full of true spy stories and dastardly Democratic malfeasance based on FBI wiretaps and surveillance, he would have written a boring book with an endless amount of agnostic gymnastics to avoid saying there was a Democratic cover-up. You know, like Radosh's book.

Radosh has been on the fence so long that the fence has pierced his buttocks and is affecting his brain.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

[RonDog]

:o)

[Cicero]

In the circumstances, I think a twist on the knife is just what is needed to wake a few people up.

If, as you say, NR gave the review assignment to Radosh in ignorance, then indeed they need to correct their mistake, and not just leave it to Ann to do so. Otherwise it makes them look guilty too.

[Balding_Eagle]

Yawn. Aren't her fifteen minutes up yet??

Ann answered that question about six months ago. You must have missed it.

[genefromjersey]

There’s not a damn thing wrong with being anti-communist-but-after the JBS got through,nobody would credit anyone who was anti-communist with anything but nuttiness...for a whole generation : a situation that gave the KGB almost a free hand.

I don’t know of anything credible that was ever published to this effect. One fiction writer touched briefly on the topic a few years ago (which practically guaranteed poor reviews): “Report to the Commisar”.

My info is from other sources-who tell me the FSB (successor to the KGB) still maintains a discreet pipeline into the Society,as a means of creating dissent and disunity in the US.

[knews_hound]

Pinging the Ann Coulter list.

On or off, let me know.

Cheers,

knewshound

[MadLibDisease]

If you don’t like Ann Coulter don’t read the thread, otherwise go to DemocratUnderground.com, whiners like you belong there.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Personally I found nothing out of bounds in JBS literature but I've read very little of theirs since the 1960s. I did very much appreciate what they had back then.

As for their "nuttiness" worse was said about McCarthy and history has proved that much of what he said was true. Of course, McCarthy was not telegenic, charismatic, and (perhaps) always sober.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with being anticommunist. I remember all the attacks on the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, the attacks on the emerging modern conservative movement, and anything that smacked of anticommunism. I think that's were Hillary learned the tricks she used to destroy "bimbos."

[RonDog]

"...'Historian' Ronald Radosh's slanderous attack on Evans' book in the Dec. 17 National Review delusionally claims that Evans used Radosh's own crappy book, 'The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism,' as a primary, uncredited source for 'Blacklisted by History.'

It is now painfully clear that Radosh was the Yoko Ono of that collaboration." - Ann Coulter

Separated at birth?

From www.gech.ch:

And, from www.frontpagemag.com:

Ronald Radosh Ronald Radosh has served as a Senior Research Associate, the Center for Communitarian Studies at George Washington University; as Professor of History in The Graduate Faculty, City University of New York; Research Director for the United States Information Agency, and as Associate Director of the Office of the President, the American Federation of Teachers. He is the author, co-author, or editor of fourteen different books, including his most recent, Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left, and the Leftover Left.

[Syncro]

Who’s the weird looking guy next to Jack Lemon in that picture?

:>)

[Syncro]

Ironically enough tomorrow Move America Forward's Honoring Heroes Event is in The MacArthur Memorial in Norfolk, VA tomorrow (well this morning for you West Coasters...) morning.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Asleep at the switch more like.

Strange thing is that Stan Evans is one of the original editors of National Review. Also, Bill Buckley's second book was McCarthy and His Enemies, co-written by his brother-in-law, Brent Bozell, Jr. It was written during the original McCarthy controversy from a generally pro-McCarthy viewpoint.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

“Radosh has been on the fence so long that the fence has pierced his buttocks and is affecting his brain. “

Badda bing! As usual, Ann closes with a bang, rim shot, and cow bell.

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP for Ann’s brilliance!

[no dems]

Why have we not seen Ann on Fox lately?

[UCANSEE2]

Al Gore is a vaguely gay, morbidly obese former Clinton administration official who raised campaign cash from Buddhist monks and claimed he invented the Internet.

You seem to object to her characterization.

One would think that her words could be called childish, in that she should just stay above this behavior.

She is a bookwriter. She is invited to Talk shows.

Her opponents misquote her, make up quotes and attribute to her, and some have taken to physical attack.

There is not a word she said in that sentence you are bored by, that is not absolutely true.

Ann is fighting fire with fire. Something that many conservatives have complained that the President won’t do. That he won’t ‘confront’ the DEMS, or ‘THROW STUFF BACK IN THEIR FACES’.

Yet, when someone does, in support of a book that is about people like Gore who are the enemy of the people, you are bored.

Ann does use her ‘brain’ to deal with her opponents. However, the MSM, and on the internet, controls whether you see and hear her use her brain.

[JasonC]

Sure. The key to understanding the present reaction to Ann and Evans is a column Buckley wrote when Treason was published, in which he basically accused Ann of trying to bring back the Birchers. To Buckley, he is the architect of modern conservatism as a synthesis between libertarian and pro business types, and traditional conservatism, and the basis of that synthesis is a bright line of exclusive that read the Birchers out. As paranoid conspiracy nuts, and in some cases smeared beyond that as neo-Nazis.

The charge is false; Ann is no Bircher. So why did Buckley react to Treason that way? Because to him, the defining fight was not McCarthy against the left, but McCarthy against Eisenhower - and he still associates siding with McCarthy in that phase of the fight, with the Birchers and their absurd charge that Ike was a communist. Which was in turn a result of taking literally McCarthy's "conspiracy so vast" speech, originally directed at Marshall and Acheson.

The facts are clear enough in Evans. Eisenhower deliberately broke with McCarthy because he found his continued investigation of security cases within the Army, specifically, after Ike was already president, to be paranoid overkill, and assumed that he was fishing and making it up, based on Ike's own prior conviction that McCarthy had unjustly smeared Marshall. Ike resented attacks on "his" army and on "his" adminstration, and employed quite similar tactics to those Truman used, to try to shut McCarthy down.

Evans and Ann have pointed this out, and it is uncomfortable stuff for the establishment Republicans of that era. The leadership back then deliberately threw McCarthy to the left, seeking Strange New Respect from the media, and peace with the oldline, Wasp, new england and ivy establishment that had defended the likes of Acheson. And part of the grassroots interpretated that decision as siding with the "conspiracy" that McCarthy was hunting, and went crazy over it, as the Birchers.

They don't want anything like the Birchers brought back. They don't want to revisit the fight, either. They don't want it pointed out that they were as right as you like about Marshall and Ike personally, but it did not change the fact that they smeared McCarthy to get rid of him, and did not fight him on those more reasonable grounds - let alone just cleaning up the messes he pointed out and letting partisan chips fall where they may in the process.

Fundamentally, the want a less strident party than Ann wants. They want to get along with the press and the left better than she does. They don't want to hunt down every case in which the left destroyed people unjustifiably and force them to admit it, nor to use such past cases to teach the next generation about the modern left today. And the reason is, at bottom, that they want to govern moderately and work with these people.

Unfortunately for that sensible sounding desire, the modern left is in fact hip deep in outright treason, and refusal to call them on it has wrecked US foreign policy. Ann sees that. Evans knows it, though he is limiting himself to telling the truth about the past, rather than advocating something now.

Ann wants in particular to force NR to admit that it is the one distorting history here, that it has smeared her, specifically, and that the Strange New Respect it tries to get from the center-left by distancing itself from her and those like her, has a long and inglorious tradition of precedents, and has furthered the left's past treasons and injustices. NR reads that as an attempt to bring a kind of Birchee conspiratorial confrontationalism back into the party, which it rightly thinks would be politically deadly. But it isn't such an attempt - it is just historical truth about how the left operates, in all its gory detail, and the ones being paranoid in the matter are the folks at NR.

The right frame to read Evans is, instead, as a modern political Lord Acton, acting out his maxim that "no reputation has withstood the revelation of private correspondance". He is arraigning men who deserve it before the bar of history, where partisanship is no excuse, and moral crimes to individuals or the better cause remain. Which is the quite conservative and principled job, of upholding moral absolutism in the discipline of history.

The shallowness of the spin deployed against Evans and Ann, is right now the most conspicuous aspect of the affair. They are right, and their critics are smearing them or chasing ghosts or politically triangulating, instead of just telling the truth.