The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run [ Evans defends Coulter against Rabinowitz]

http://www.anncoulter.org/refused.htm ^ | M. Stanton Evans

[Akron Al]

The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run
I Dare Call It Treason | Sample Audio from Treason | Treason on CD
TREASON: NOW AVAILABLE! Slander: Hardcover | Audio CD | Large Print High Crimes: In Paperback!

The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run

To The Editor:

A pretty good rule of thumb for judging media comment on Joe McCarthy is that people who most vociferously deplore him seldom know the facts of record.

Vide the recent Dorothy Rabinowitz piece in the Journal attacking Ann Coulter’s new book Treason and its McCarthy chapters. In her double-barreled blast against McCarthy/Coulter, Ms. Rabinowitz makes statements that indicate extensive ignorance of McCarthy’s doings and can but compound prevailing myths about him.

Treason!

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War..., Coulter
.

Sponsors

<br> a:link {color:800000; text-decoration:none} a:hover {color:800000;text-decoration:none } <br> .regular {font-size:8pt; color:800000;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none} .adHeadline { font-size:9pt; font-family:arial; font-weight:bold; color:800000;text-decoration:none } .adText { font-size:9pt; font-family:arial; font-weight:normal; color:800000;text-decoration:none }

Start Advertising Now

Human Events
.

E-Mail List

One need go no further to see the point than the first of the McCarthy cases Rabinowitz refers to, and that Coulter discusses in her book: The episode of Annie Lee Moss, the U.S. Army code clerk so memorably portrayed by Edward R. Murrow, and others, as a pitiful victim of McCarthy. Ms. Rabinowitz, sad to say, obviously knows nothing at all about this matter.

As it happens, there is a voluminous official record on the case, accessible to Ms. Rabinowitz and anyone else who cares to view it. This shows Mrs. Moss had been identified as a member of the Communist Party in the District of Columbia by FBI undercover agent Mary Markward, who had access to the party’s records. This information was passed on from the Bureau to the Army, which nonetheless promoted Mrs. Moss from cafeteria worker to code clerk, and security-cleared her for these duties.

The outrageous Joe McCarthy, if you can believe it, actually wanted to know how such a thing could happen. When Mrs. Moss appeared before him in March of 1954, she denied she was a communist, indicated she had never heard of Marx, and allowed that she was being confused with some other Annie Lee Moss who must have been the guilty party. This mistaken-identity theme was echoed by the Democrats on the panel, and has been repeated often since.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Moss and for such as Murrow, she inadvertently gave the game away in testifying--volunteering as one of her addresses 72 R St. S.W. in the District. This proved to be the crucial evidence in the case when, four years later, the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) obtained the records of the D.C. party, and there found an Annie Lee Moss, of 72 R St. S.W., listed as a member in the middle ‘40s. Thus Markward’s testimony was confirmed by the Communists’ own records, reflecting this particular Annie Lee Moss, and no other, as a party member.

Ann Coulter’s discussion of the case quite accurately sums up the foregoing information, while Rabinowitz -- though with Coulter’s book before her -- ignores it entirely. The Coulter-Markward-McCarthy version gets the matter exactly right; the Murrow-Senate Democrat-Rabinowitz version is wrong, as shown by an extensive record (the SACB revisited the case on a number of occasions).

The question of Annie Lee Moss is important in itself, as it is so often mentioned in discussions of McCarthy. However, it is even more important as a kind of template for his other cases -- Peress, Amerasia, the speech at Wheeling, Owen Lattimore, and many more. There can be no intelligible discussion of these matters without knowing what the facts are, and these won’t be found by re-cycling Edward R. Murrow’s version of our history.

Anyway, that’s already being handled by The New York Times. Faithful readers of your pages expect something better from the Journal.

M. Stanton Evans
Washington, DC

return to column archives

home | columns | bio | events | images | contact | chat | extras | links

All content copyright 2000 - 2003 anncoulter.org.

anncoulter.org is a proud member of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ontos-on]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run." I presume it was sent to the WSJ and they were told it would not be printed. "not enough space" indeed. Do you know who M. Stanton Evans is? The not printing of a letter from him on this topic is not a meaningless event. It is a refusal, a decision to not print what they otherwise should have printed. They started the controversey by printing Rabinowitz's article.

Really, What is your angle here?

[ontos-on]

You are ridiculous on this, and I am only up to post # 21. I cant imagine what facts you have twisted by the time you get to my posts. Sayonara.

[Diago]

Who called them traitors? Both Horowitz and Rabinowitz made egregious errors of fact in their reviews. Are we supposed to ignore that?

You got it.

[HISSKGB]

Thanks!

I found this book a little slow at the start and then was really surprised to see how she hit so many points and condensed them so well. An added pleasure was some of Coulter's punch lines! I rolled out of bed with laughter and punched the spouse to listen as I tried to repeat them.

[DPB101]

Now after Ann's book, people are willing to stand up and say that the Daschles and the Gephardts and the Clintons don't love their country at all - in fact they hate it and are trying to destroy it or turn it into something it was never meant to be.

Exactly. Among the other things the left has erased from history is fact that the liberal agenda had fierce oppostion. There was a million Mothers Movement in the 1930s which fought the New Deal and which saw how FDR and Democrats were perverting our system of government. Ann is making that view respectable once again.

Garet Garrett summed up the feeling of many in this 1938 essey: THE REVOLUTION WAS

[<1/1,000,000th%]

When Mrs. Moss appeared before him in March of 1954, she denied she was a communist, indicated she had never heard of Marx, and allowed that she was being confused with some other Annie Lee Moss who must have been the guilty party. This mistaken-identity theme was echoed by the Democrats on the panel, and has been repeated often since.

"I do not recall being a communist".

[PhilDragoo]

So much of the ack-ack at Coulter is fired blind; Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore.

M. Stanton Evans was superb debating Dr. Robert Risk President of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union in 1964. Evans was editor of the Indianapolis News, articulate, grounded in fact, devastating in argument.

His leftist opponent simply avoided the inconvenient facts--as Dorothy Rabinowitz and Edward R. Murrow have done regarding the subject of Coulter's Treason.

Susan Estrich advised all to view the videotape of the Army-McCarthy hearings--yet that would present an edited, agenda-driven propaganda screed, just as the Murrow version does.

I enjoy the treatment of fact by Coulter, the very thing her critics shrink from, be they of the left or right, in print or on this forum.

Her High Crimes & Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Regnery, 1998, is thoroughly annotated and built on the legal groundwork for impeachment in constitutional law.

Coulter went on to expose the truth that Nixon wasn't the Nixon of myth--rather, Clinton was. Who audited enemies? Who used the FBI for personal vendetta? Not Nixon, Clinton.

So it is with the McCarthy myth. Who played fast and loose with the truth? The communists. I'm shocked, shocked.

I don't set too high a standard for the Wall Street Journal.

Its Whitewater, 1995, was mixed, containing both excellent detail of epic corruption, but also long-winded obfuscation, stonewalling, and partisan spin.

The point of M. Stanton Evan's excellent letter goes beyond the extant Ready Fire Aim Rabinowitz Gaffe w/Malice--it is the Rosetta Stone for 99.44/100ths of the anti-Coulter bleaters:

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts! McCarthy was bad and Coulter is too thin! See? We stick our fingers in our ears and cry LA LA LA LA LA LA We can't hear you!"

I have Treason, but I also have The Roosevelt Myth, by John T. Flynn, "the best informed and the most tenacious of the Old Right foes of Franklin Roosevelt". So I know about Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore.

Even Rush Limbaugh perceives that the reason Nixon was pilloried was that he outed Hiss, not that he was involved in the Watergate break-in.

Treason happens.

Dorothy, meet Jane.

[Maigrey]

morning read

[Ann Archy]

I doubt that Annie Lee Moss is Jewish, so why else would an educated person like Dorohy Rabinowitz cover for her?

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

There was a million Mothers Movement in the 1930s which fought the New Deal and which saw how FDR and Democrats were perverting our system of government.

Ain't history grand? This is very interesting. So the commie mommies appropriated this historical idea with their MMM, apparently? And thanks for the Garrett link!

[UbIwerks]

On this occasion, by the way, Rabinowitz did not "disagree with" Ms Coulter. Instead Rabinowitz ignored history, ignored truth and, worse, ignored the book she pretended to criticize and personally attacked Ms Coulter and attempted to demean the quality of Ms Coulter's painstaking research, all of the evidence presented in Treason -- and to overlook history and truth.

Having read Rabinowitz's column on Ann Coulter, I have to heartily agree with the italicized remarks. What makes it worse is one couldn't make out whether Miss Rabinowitz didn't know what the truth was about Annie Lee Moss or did know and just didn't care because of her gut animus against Sen. McCarthy and Ann Coulter for daring to again set the record straight.

However, the cartoon of Ann Coulter with Sen. McCarthy American Gothic style was cute though.

[onyx]

When is Evans's book scheduled for release?

[MEG33]

Thanks for the ping!

[Paul Ross]

Ping.

[Theodore R.]

I had liked Rabinowitz fairly well too, but she is more interested in what the "liberal mainstream" of the East Coast thinks of her than is Coulter. I prefer Coulter, who will leave no stones unturned in getting at truth. Rabinowitz was undoubedly trying to get Sally Quinn or someone like her to say something nice about Rabinowitz.

[iranger]

I disagree. When you get a chance to have yourself vindicated by another, you go with it. I've seen the oh so proper Rabinowitz on CNBC, she's not kind you would rest the safety or soul on. This guy slapped Dorothy so hard she had better figure out how to stop the bleeding.

[jackbill]

the last dig about McCarthy supporting the Nazis was totally off base.

When I read Evans' letter, I went back to re-read Rabinowitz's column. I too was struck by her dig about the "Nazi" support.

So I did a bit of digging and came up with a very interesting piece (Malmedy and McCarthy) by a contemporary, in 1954. It's at:

http://www.fredautley.com/malmedy.htm

It gives a good insight into Military Tribunals, which makes it especially appropriate today.

It also gives a hint as to why it was important to Rabinowitz.

McCarthy was on a sub-committee investigating charges that the investigators and prosecutors had used physical and mental torture on the accused German Army folks charged with the Malmedy Massacre. McCarthy walked out on the sub-committee claiming that it was a white-wash, and he said so on the floor of the Senate.

Most, if not all of the investigators and prosecutors were Jewish.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Who has labeled those folks traitors? Being incorrect doesn't make them traitors.

[Eva]

Malmedy was indeed a massacre, but the men responsible were just young rank and file members of a tank brigade who were ordered to shoot the enemy soldiers who were in the line of advancement (actually, I think it was retreat). The US soldiers had been left unattended on the road in front of the tank division and so were just all gunned down by the tanks before very many even had a chance to escape. Those who were not killed in the tank assault were killed by SS officers who walked among the dead and dying, shooting and stabbing anything that moved.

The men who were charged and sentenced to death were just the rank and rile, low ranking soldiers, almost all very young. McCarthy claimed that the sentences were too harsh for such low ranking soldiers and apparently someone agreed with him because the sentences were all commuted to time in jail, all I think less than twenty years.

[jackbill]

The men who were charged and sentenced to death were just the rank and rile, low ranking soldiers, almost all very young. McCarthy claimed that the sentences were too harsh for such low ranking soldiers and apparently someone agreed with him because the sentences were all commuted to time in jail, all I think less than twenty years.

Not, apparently, before a number of them were executed.