Skip to comments.The Unreal Ronald Kessler
Posted on 05/06/2008 10:39:46 AM PDT by bs9021
The Unreal Ronald Kessler by: M. Stanton Evans, May 06, 2008
Herewith a letter sent to The Wall Street Journal a week ago in response to the recent anti-McCarthy article by Ronald Kessler....
I have held off on circulating this letter until The Wall Street Journal had ample chance to run it....
Like many other critics of Joe McCarthy, Ronald Kessler would be more persuasive if he knew something of the subject.
Kesslers Journal essay ("The Real Joe McCarthy," April 22), attacking the Wisconsin senator and taking a sidewise shot at my recent book about him, is an odd amalgam of unverifiable hearsay and a handful of items checkable from the record. Its noteworthy that, on the checkable matters, Kessler is repeatedly, and egregiously, in error. For openers, there is the bizarre assertion in Kesslers lead that, 54 years ago this April, McCarthy started his televised hearings on alleged Soviet spies and Communists in the Army. The point is twice repeated in subsequent paragraphs referring to these sessions as McCarthy hearings.
In fact, the hearings that began 54 years ago this April werent hearings conducted by McCarthy, but hearings in which he was the main defendant, brought on by charges lodged against him by the Army. Kessler has obviously confused these sessions with the Fort Monmouth inquest of the previous year run by McCarthy. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between these two sets of hearings cant be taken seriously as an authority on such topics.
Scarcely better is Kesslers repetition, as supposed fact, of the discredited notion that McCarthy claimed a list of 205 Communists in the State Department, then crawfished and changed the number to 57. (McCarthys version was that he never claimed 205, but had said 57 all along.)...
....Omitted from this Welchian morality playand apparently unknown to Kessler...
(Excerpt) Read more at campusreportonline.net ...
Oh, puh-leeze. The fact that a politician issues a denial when caught in an embarassment does not "discredit" it. By this logic, every single charge ever made against Clinton (either one) has been "discredited".
bs9021, too bad your snippet didn’t include the next few
sentences in the article. It might have changed steve-b’s
It’s the whole “excerpts must be 300 words” problem—AIM doesn’t let us post their full articles.