'TAILGUNNER JOE' McCARTHY FOUGHT A REAL FOE

NY POST ^ | May 10, 2003 | Letters column

[Liz]

THE ISSUE: Recently released transcripts of the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings.

[Liz]

The old Soviet archives that were released - the Venona files - confirmed that McCarthy was on to something very big, and indeed he was.

From all the books written on the topic, it appears McCarthy was doing something right and needful but he went about it the wrong way.

[Reactionary]

The wrong way?

I wonder what the "right way" would have been.

[MEG33]

You are correct in my opinion.(In the US the ideology is now called Progressive as communist is not PC.)

[MEG33]

His personality and drinking got in the way if I recall.

[JoeSixPack1]

Joe McCarthy understood that people can and will act according to their thoughts.

A void concept in academia. An alien feeling to socialism. A nightmare for the darkside.

[backhoe]

Tailgunner Joe--Patriot Whistleblower or Right-Wing Witch-hunter?

[Texas_Jarhead]

"The issue should not be whether or not those who McCarthy hunted were Communists. The real issue is that in a democratic society people were put on trial and blacklisted for their political beliefs. Behavior like McCarthy's is expected in Stalinist societies, but it is unacceptable in any country that wishes to proclaim itself a democracy."

That's a nice try at mis-direction but I think the issue was and is whether folks were communists. For communists did and do strive for the complete dismemberment of America as we know it. They are emenies of the people and the Consitution, and by extension, enemies of the state. Our nation cannot exist blind and indifferent to the forces that seek its destruction. That is foolish.

[weegee]

The issue should not be whether or not those who McCarthy hunted were Communists. The real issue is that in a democratic society people were put on trial and blacklisted for their political beliefs. Behavior like McCarthy's is expected in Stalinist societies, but it is unacceptable in any country that wishes to proclaim itself a democracy.

Stalin called these American socialists "useful idiots". The phrase is still apropriate.

Stalin killed millions more of his own people than Hitler did. The American Communists marched for Uncle Joe Stalin, whether or not they realize it.

Sometimes you must identify an enemy (Joseph Stalin) and protect your nation. The communists worked as fifth columnists seeking to overthrow our government to aid a foreign power.

The anarchist-socialists of today (who riot in the streets) also seek to overthrow our government. Their plans are not compatible with our constitutional form of government.

[Reactionary]

"The real issue is that in a democratic society people were put on trial and blacklisted for their political beliefs."

It is a nice attempt at redirecting the argument. After all, McCarthy wasn't simply interested in communists; he was interested in communists who held positions of power within our own government and elsewhere. This was never about prosecuting communists per se.

"Behavior like McCarthy's is expected in Stalinist societies, but it is unacceptable in any country that wishes to proclaim itself a democracy."

Really? The author is asserting that "democracies" operate according to the belief that ideological enemies do not - and can not - exist? The destruction of the ideological adherents of Stalinist communism is like... communism itself?

And interesting assertion, I suppose. According to this "logic," we should allow Islamic militants to run the State Department and oversee the War on Terror. Anything less would be... Islamic Fundamentalism itself!

Liberals prove that their allegiance to egalitarian socialism is greater than their allegiance to America once again.

[weegee]

According to this "logic," we should allow Islamic militants to run the State Department and oversee the War on Terror.

The UN sees nothing wrong with these nations heading the commmittee on Human Rights.

[wheelright]

"wonder what the "right way" would have been."

Liz has a point. McCarthy used the typical politicians method of using an issue for personal gain, no matter the consequences.

At the time, intelligence community was pulling their hair out because of the damage his hamfisted, shotgun methods were doing to their investigations into Gouzenko's revelations. He was turning the lights on prematurely and allowing the roaches to run for cover. It is not debatable that he sullied many a trail for the true investigators.

Last but not least; It cannot be denied that he provided the libs with the club of "McCarthyism" to sidetrack any serious questions regarding their true intentions.

[Skywalk]

That may be, but since little was being done about infiltrators before his time, what makes you think his tactics weren't needed?

I mean, from what I've read it sounded like every attempt to expose Communists and their allies were thwarted and it was only through the very public hearings(though many names were not used) that such nefarious activity came to light.

Sometimes I wonder, could we just replace "Communist" with the word "Nazi" or "white supremacist" or "Fascist" or "Islamic fundamentalist" and understand what it meant to have such people in positions of power? No lefty would have had a problem outing fascists, but make them leftists and all of a sudden it's a crime or purge.

[MEG33]

Great link,backhoe.

[backhoe]

Thanks for looking!

[wheelright]

"replace "Communist" with the word "Nazi" or "white supremacist" or "Fascist" or "Islamic fundamentalist" and understand what it meant to have such people in positions of power? No lefty would have had a problem outing fascists, but make them leftists and all of a sudden it's a crime or purge" This will work only if you change Islamic to religeous. Then it's business as usual for the left. When they can't debate the facts of an issue, they obfuscate the issue with epithets. To carry your analogy one step further, compare McCarthy on the right to Senator Depends from Vermont on the left and his egregeous leaks from behind the closed door hearings of the Senate Intelligence (snicker) Commitee. Shouldn't they both be soundly criticised for their actions? While McCarthy's cause might have been noble, he had no right to endanger ongoing investigations, especially when in some cases he was specifically warned of the damage he was doing.

[ghostrider]

One doesn't have to look at old Soviet Archives to know that McCarthy was on to something. Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric are living proof of the results of the Stalinist Type mind control of the news media. The rigid thought control by the Hollywood brainwashing machine is another example. He may have roughed up the Constitution with his direct attacks on the communists, but he did not do nearly as much damage as the vast left wing liberal conspiracy which destroyed many of the American values held by the writers of the Constitution.

[Skywalk]

If that allegation is true, then I won't disagree with you. However, there is much that was NOT being done, because if all these investigations were ongoing, they certainly brought nothing to trial over that time(except the Rosenbergs)

And with the cover-ups beforehand(all the way back to FDR) it certainly didn't seem like much was being done, though there perhaps were a few special cases that McCarthy did damage.

[dix]

Old Joe was right,but I do think he went about it in a way that left the commies many openings to demonize him.

Our government was rife with commies, and I believe it still is. They are just called by a different name, or they are useful idiots like Maxine, Sheila, et al who are too stupid to realize they would be the first to go if the commies ever took over.

[metesky]

The real issue is that in a democratic society people were put on trial and blacklisted for their political beliefs.

Just because those beliefs include subverting the government and laws of the host country doesn't mean they're bad guys. (/sarcasm)

[wheelright]

"If that allegation is true" I'm assuming you mean as to whether attempts were made to warn McCarthy off. The answer is yes. He was grew so unpredictable in fact that, there was an anxious debate among the intelligence community at one point whether or not to warn him further since, they could not be sure that their warnings would only serve to send him off on another tangent. A large amount of evidence and documentation in American files of Gouzenko's allegations subsequently "disappeared". It is assumed that moles were at work armed with clues provided by McCarthy and others exposed their existence before they could be fully exploited. Remember, very few people knew of the defection of Gouzenko and what he provided. While he wasn't totally responsible, he certainly didn't help the cause in the end.