Symposium: Treason? (Klehr, Haynes, Estrich and Brennan detailed discussion of Coulter's book)

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 7/25/03 | Jamie Glazov

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

LOL! They invite Susan Ostrich and Phil Brennan, but did they try to invite Ann Coulter to defend herself? If not, why not?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Haynes: ...President Truman in 1948 set up a massive loyalty program to remove Communists from federal employment.

Truman's Justice Department convicted the leadership of the CPUSA under the Smith Act, convicted Alger Hiss, and in 1950 arrested and later convicted the Rosenbergs, David Greenglass, Harry Gold, and Morton Sobell for espionage...
=====

Did this guy read the Venona files? That was just the tip of the iceberg.

[patriciaruth]

Ping!!!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Estrich: ...The Pro-Joe camp also ignores that McCarthy was a drunkard, a bully, and a man who ignored the liberties and constitutional protections he claimed to be trying to protect from the Communist Menace...

Hm... What liberties and constitutional protections did McCarthy ignore? The 'constitutional right' for registered communists to keep jobs in State and the military? I wonder if members of NAMBLA and satanics would have that same right?

[plsjr]

Joe McCarthy was an individual who severely damaged the cause of anti-Communism. Why would a conservative try to legitimize him? And what purpose is served by accusing all political opponents of “treason”? Doesn’t such a broad-brushed charge profoundly trivialize the word “treason” itself and make it more difficult to discuss actual cases of treason in a serious way?

A broad statement that makes an unsupported assertion in introduction. A quick scan left me with the impression that this is another hit piece put together by the treasonous. If there are facts to counter Ann's factual account, I'll pay attention. But this seems to me just another account that cherry-picks and twists the truth to support and protect the big lie that has been perpetrated upon us.

my $.02

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"...Harry Truman led America into the Cold War and the Truman Doctrine with its commitment to American containment of Soviet aggression remained the basic U.S. strategy until the USSR collapsed in 1991..."

Truman was a goofball. He made the US vulnerable to Soviet spies. His 'nukes for peace' program did more for nuclear proliferation than anything else on earth. He fired General MacArthur for fighting too well, not to mention telling MacArthur to stop advancing up NK when the enemy was in retreat. Truman's only vitue was his frugalness. We could use some frugalness right now. But looking at all the harm he did, I'm glad he's not around to provide more frugalness.

[D-fendr]

thanks for posting this.

[MEG33]

Great Read!!I really loved the Noam Chomsky hit at the end!I'll re read it when I'm more awake.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

It's true that McCarthy was no saint. But he certainly had the right, general idea. No one has a constitutional right to keep his or her job in State or the military. If we find out something horrible about that person, or even somewhat questionable, that person should be fired. It's simple as that.

[patriciaruth]

Truman apparently did not have the vision thing.

[DPB101]

An example of McCarthy "browbeating" a witness. The Chairman is questioning Reed Harris, Deputy Adminstration of the United States International Information Agency:

The Chairman. You may answer any question at as much length as you care to.

Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that is very fair. Although I do not have the advice of counsel----

The Chairman. May I say, in that connection, that each witness has a right to have counsel here, and if you care to have counsel, you may. And I shall tell you for your own information that the evidence before the committee at this time would indicate--I do not think I should try to evaluate the evidence.

One witness, known as a Communist, has refused to state whether he knew you as a member of the Communist party. One of the senators pointed out to him that if he refused to answer whether he knew you as a Communist or not, unless he had some reason to believe that you were, he would be doing you a great injustice, because he would be creating the impression that you were. He was asked whether he honestly felt that it might incriminate him if he answered that question. He said he honestly felt it would. He was allowed not to answer it.

In other words, there was considerable testimony here in regard to you of a questionable nature. For that reason, you may want to have counsel. If you do, you have a perfect right to have counsel.

The rule is that when you have counsel, you can confer with him at any time during your testimony. We do not let counsel take part in the proceedings, however.

So that you do have a perfect right to have counsel, and if you care to have counsel, it will not have any adverse effect upon the thinking of the committee in arriving at a conclusion here.

It is an absolute right that you have.

And if you would care to get counsel, we will adjourn and let you get counsel and come in tomorrow or whenever you care to.

Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, I consider that I have nothing to hide from anyone. That represents a naive statement on my part. Because a man untrained in the law can unintentionally so phrase things that points can be used against him and create impressions that he does not intend to convey. Do I understand that if I desire counsel, this hearing at this time will be adjourned until I can produce one?

The Chairman. Yes. We will give you as much time, or I do not say as much time, but I am sure we can agree on a period of time to give you plenty of opportunity to discuss the matter with counsel so that you will not be rushed into anything at all.

Harris oversaw the Voice of America. McCarthy was attempting to determine who ordered Hebrew language transmissions halted at the exact same time Stalin began a purge of Jews in Eastern Europe (11 high ranking Jewish party members had been executed in Prague). The committee suspected either a Soviet agent had ordered the broadcasts terminated or the agency was hopelessly inept.

[Psalm 73]

"Estrich: ...The Pro-Joe camp also ignores that McCarthy was a drunkard, a bully..."

Typical liberal 'Slander' - in the absence of facts, trash your opponent - how transparent.

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping

[alloysteel]

Two fallacies, right out of the box. That Joe McCarthy damaged the cause of anti-Communism, and that liberals, in the expression of their belief that America does not represent the best example in history of human endeavour in the realm of human rights, opportunities, and achievement, do not practice treason. Joe McCarthy was a lonely voice in speaking out against what had become an almost abject surrender to Communist influence, and the resulting din of shrieks of the sympathizers who had been exposed almost drowned out any voices supportive of Joe McCarthy.

Liberals, in their almost pathological defense of the underdog, ANY underdog, have jumped to the cause of practically anybody who has a grievance with the way government is administered. Perhaps it matters not that this trait kicks in during both Democrat and Republican administrations, but the Democrat administrations have a tendency to co-opt and integrate the protest movement with their national platform and legislative policy. There are many legitimate objections to how policy is carried out, and there should be opportunity, at least in hindsight, to explain why this or that particular line of reasoning was used in making this policy.

But that would require the parties involved to keep the discussion at some rational, dispassionate arena of ideas. The rhetoric, and the decibel level, have been raised in many instances by whoever has the biggest bullhorn, and can raise the most raucous crowds. The raucous crowds take on the appearance of (poorly-organized) armies, who seem to share the objectives and interests of external enemies of the United States, of nations and organizations that have already visited harm upon the United States.

Oh, the spokespersons of this ragtag mob say, that was only in response to the great injustices visited upon these nations and organizations by the United States at some previous time, and the US should pay reparations, not engage in retribution. The US should not engage in self-defense, but rectify the situation immediately.

[MEG33]

Susan,though acknowledging the Rosenberg and Hiss guilt and communist infiltration ,she is a child of the LIE and she will only go so far to see the light.She's honest..she's no historian.

[jamaksin]

Lest we forget - under the Lend-Lease Program, the United States sent to the USSR, in the Spring of 1943, tens of tons of nuclear material, including enriched uranium.

The head of said Lend-Lease Program - Harry 'The Hop' Hopkins - aka FDR's alter-ego and now known as Agent No. 19 from the Venona decrypts.

This is the same 'The Hop' who was with FDR when ye olde Franklin is given those decoded Japanese messages on December 6, 1941 (Washington time) and says "This means war!" ... and then does nothing to alert the US military ... that Harry 'The Hop' Hopkins and FDR.

[dix]

The Army had such a distrust of Truman that they didn't even tell him about the Venona files.

[Map Kernow]

When Andrew Sullivan claimed in his hit piece on Ann a few weeks ago that Ronald Radosh had told him Ann's book was a "distortion" of research he, Haynes and Klehr had done (Ann paid Radosh back by writing a column decrying the way Radosh has been treated by academia for his book "The Rosenberg File"---Proverbs 25:21-22), I was just waiting for the "other shoe to drop." Now it seems good old Dave Horowitz (who still carries Ann's column on his Frontpage Magazine site!) has organized a "stacked deck" "symposium" to "debunk" Ann's book.

I'll save a detailed response for later, but it's worth noting that many individuals who are now the "go to" people for the history of post-WW II communism have origins on the left or were initially sympathetic to American Communists or Popular Front types. Radosh initially set out to prove that the Rosenbergs had been railroaded to their deaths, and Weinstein initially got access to and the cooperation of Alger Hiss for his definitive study of the Hiss-Chambers case "Perjury," because he was at first convinced of Hiss' innocence (to their credit, both Radosh and Weinstein let the evidence change their minds, and both have paid a price for such honesty in academia).

[pgyanke]

Ping!