Joseph McCarthy Did Nothing Wrong (Or Did He Do Plenty Wrong?)

[ATP]

Reading about how McCarthy was attacked, smeared, and demonized even at his height of power goes to how how the radical left controlled America’s powerful institutions even in the 1950’s and likely before.

Rosenbergs even dare tried to accuse american of being antisemites becouse they catch them for betraing USA.Nothing new.
Problem is - traitors win and are ruling USA.

 

[LTR]

Threads merged. Added a threadmark since Aldarion wrote the article, which is neat.

 

[ShieldWife]

Rosenbergs even dare tried to accuse american of being antisemites becouse they catch them for betraing USA.Nothing new.
Problem is - traitors win and are ruling USA.

A strange accusation when the judge in their case (Irving Kaufman) the prosecutor (Irving Saypol) and the guy who largely behind their arrests and prosecution (Roy Cohn) were all Jewish.

Then again, just about every leftist claim of racism as a defense is as vacuous but they’ve been using it for decades.

 

[Cherico]

A strange accusation when the judge in their case (Irving Kaufman) the prosecutor (Irving Saypol) and the guy who largely behind their arrests and prosecution (Roy Cohn) were all Jewish.

Then again, just about every leftist claim of racism as a defense is as vacuous but they’ve been using it for decades.

The rosenburgs deserved to die, they brought great shame onto our community and were traitors of the highest order.

 

[ATP]

The rosenburgs deserved to die, they brought great shame onto our community and were traitors of the highest order.

Optymist.Traitors of highest order were never catch.Their grandkids probably rule USA now.

 

[JagerIV]

All the McCarthy stuff can go into the same thread, because it's the same topic every time, and people who subscribed to one thread won't know the other stuff. Now I am going to have to move the posts again, and probably ask a super mod to do the actual merge. Please just stay in the same thread.

Eh, I have no real reason to believe your narrative on this. I guess its pefectly possible that Mcarthy was the terrible one, which is why the communists chose him as the face of anti-communism. Its also perfectly possible he was mostly right.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Snip for rino whining.

Lol keep seething you America last hack.

Any way, No university should receive public funding from the Federal Government. Local governments yes, but federal funding? No, fuck no.

The department of education itself shouldn't exist for the simple reason that Government is not capable of fostering and promoting intelligence. 80% of people who choose public service as a career path do so because they are too stupid to work for a living and so opt to leech off the American people as an upper echelon welfare class.

As to Tail Gunner Joe?

It should have been obvious that the entire house un-American activities committe was gigantic trap by the left to discredit the right when Nixon started to burn it and avoided being the central guy in the crusade.

He was right to purge leftwing ideology from the government. But he should have focused on the deconstructivists not the Marxists.

The communists inside our government are useful idiots for the Babeufists/Maratists and they're the ones doing the most damage.

Basically Joe was chosen because he was a loud, blind idiot who they knew was gonna miss the target and make enough noise to annoy the folks back home and so pushed him.

He will be remembered as a useful idiot in the same vein as Jose Felix Uriburu a contemporary of FDR.

Meanwhile Gustavo Leigh will be remembered as a damn hero because at least he was correct when he burned suspected leftwing terrorists alive...at least 45% of the time.

Which is honestly pretty good averages for anyone much less a honking lunatic

 

[Abhorsen]

Eh, I have no real reason to believe your narrative on this. I guess its pefectly possible that Mcarthy was the terrible one, which is why the communists chose him as the face of anti-communism. Its also perfectly possible he was mostly right.

... But we know he was lying. I mean, there's a fair bit of evidence that supports one hypothesis and makes the other look stupid.

If we presume he wasn't lying, all of the following is true:

McCarthy, a known liar about stolen valor, somehow gets a list of communists (that constantly changes in length. He then goes on to first disclose this list first to... not the media who would have ate it up (as they did later). Not the government which was eager to get rid of them. No, the big reveal can only go to the most important people: a small women's political group of no consequence other than this. He also somehow comes up with a selection from the Lee list (an actual list of problems, a few of which were commies, most of whom were security risks cause of drunkeness or cheating on wives, etc) despite getting the list from 'loyal State Department employees'. He deliberately doesn't disclose his evidence that Owen Lattimore is a top Russian spy, allowing him to go free because even despite extensive effort, Hoover had nothing on him.

So no, there is overwhelming evidence the guy is a liar and scumbag of the highest order.

As to Tail Gunner Joe?

It should have been obvious that the entire house un-American activities committe was gigantic trap by the left to discredit the right when Nixon started to burn it and avoided being the central guy in the crusade.

He was right to purge leftwing ideology from the government. But he should have focused on the deconstructivists not the Marxists.

The communists inside our government are useful idiots for the Babeufists/Maratists and they're the ones doing the most damage.

Basically Joe was chosen because he was a loud, blind idiot who they knew was gonna miss the target and make enough noise to annoy the folks back home and so pushed him.

He wasn't chosen, he volunteered himself by starting up the big lie. Without him doing this, there would never have been such a quick, mass discrediting of redhunting. Sure, it would have happened slowly as it would be called problematic, etc, but not one quick fall from grace as what happened with Joe. He deserves his full share of the blame here for how his lies harmed America.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

He wasn't chosen, he volunteered himself by starting up the big lie. Without him doing this, there would never have been such a quick, mass discrediting of redhunting. Sure, it would have happened slowly as it would be called problematic, etc, but not one quick fall from grace as what happened with Joe. He deserves his full share of the blame here for how his lies harmed America.

A useful idiot, voluntarily stepping up to the slaughter because his neurotic need for attention is fed by his handlers...Is still someone being chosen.

 

[JagerIV]

... But we know he was lying. I mean, there's a fair bit of evidence that supports one hypothesis and makes the other look stupid.

If we presume he wasn't lying, all of the following is true:

McCarthy, a known liar about stolen valor, somehow gets a list of communists (that constantly changes in length. He then goes on to first disclose this list first to... not the media who would have ate it up (as they did later). Not the government which was eager to get rid of them. No, the big reveal can only go to the most important people: a small women's political group of no consequence other than this. He also somehow comes up with a selection from the Lee list (an actual list of problems, a few of which were commies, most of whom were security risks cause of drunkeness or cheating on wives, etc) despite getting the list from 'loyal State Department employees'. He deliberately doesn't disclose his evidence that Owen Lattimore is a top Russian spy, allowing him to go free because even despite extensive effort, Hoover had nothing on him.

So no, there is overwhelming evidence the guy is a liar and scumbag of the highest order.



He wasn't chosen, he volunteered himself by starting up the big lie. Without him doing this, there would never have been such a quick, mass discrediting of redhunting. Sure, it would have happened slowly as it would be called problematic, etc, but not one quick fall from grace as what happened with Joe. He deserves his full share of the blame here for how his lies harmed America.

Eh, as I said I have no reason to trust anything you say about this. All information on him is going to be basically political propaganda, I'm assumedly mostly from his enemies given how quickly he was crushed, and given your past claims, I don't have faith in any sources you present. You haven't really presented any sources, just a list of accusations, all of which have enough room for interpretation or simple misunderstanding, if its not just regurgitated Communist lies, that I will have no real ability to confirm or deny anything you say.

For example, first google source makes these claims about the list McCarthy says:

Joe McCarthy Was Right

At the recent conference on “Rethinking McCarthy,” veteran journalist M. Stanton Evans disputed a number of myths about the Senator that have been accepted by leading historians and media figures.

www.aim.org

At the recent conference on “Rethinking McCarthy,” veteran journalist M. Stanton Evans disputed a number of myths about the Senator that have been accepted by leading historians and media figures. Evans, the director of the National Journalism Center who is writing his own book on Senator Joseph McCarthy, said one of the most notorious myths is that the Wisconsin Senator never named any names of suspected communists in government. Holding up a file of material, Evans said, “Here are the names. Right here. Anybody who wants to can look at them.” He produced a letter that McCarthy sent to Senator Millard Tydings in 1950 in which he listed the names.

The original list, which included numbers of cases and not names, was obtained by McCarthy after it was put together by congressional staffers. It was drawn from the files of the State Department itself. But McCarthy provided the cases to Tydings with the names attached. Critics have said over the years that the list was either outdated, blown out of proportion, that the individuals named were cleared by congressional committees, or that they were just mildly leftist. But none of that was true. Evans quoted from some of them: “…he furnished material to a known Soviet espionage agent…” and “…He is a known Communist Party member.”

Evans said the biggest piece of disinformation was that these cases had been cleared by congressional hearings. This was false. The chairman of one committee said the information showed “a large number of communists on the rolls of the State Department.” He added, “It makes me wonder if there is any representation of the United States in the State Department.”

McCarthy also had access to information about Amerasia, a pro-Communist magazine, and State Department diplomat John Stewart Service, who was arrested for passing classified information to its editor. In a major speech, McCarthy called the Justice Department failure to prosecute the case a massive cover-up. “We now know that he was 100 percent correct,” Evans said of McCarthy?s charges. The FBI wiretapped the meeting where the cover-up was planned and the case was fixed to get Service off. Playing a role in the cover-up was Soviet agent Laughlin Currie in the White House. He was a key adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt.

That's a good number of names of very suspicious people, and paints a very different picture than what your saying. Plus, well, one doesn't have to be a communist party member to partake in communist subversion. That should be clear from how we plainly see the left operate.

Never Forget: Joe McCarthy Was Right!

Senator Joseph McCarthy, a courageous and patriotic American. “Senator Cruz’s substantive point was absolutely correct: in the mid-1990s, the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self…

theothermccain.com

Democrats and the major news media — but I repeat myself — have decided that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s opposition to the Chuck Hagel nomination makes him the “New McCarthy.”

And they say that like it’s a bad thing.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy has been unjustly and dishonestly maligned for so long that even many conservative Republicans nowadays use “McCarthyism” as a slur, without any real understanding of who the man was, or what he was trying to accomplish.

Intellectuals who today think of themselves as the rightful heirs of William F. Buckley Jr. often seem to forget that the second book Buckley wrote, after God and Man at Yale, was McCarthy and His Enemies, which Buckley co-authored with his brother-in-law Brent Bozell (father of Brent Bozell III, who is today head of the Media Research Center). Buckley knew, as do all honest and intelligent students of the Cold War era, that even if one stipulates McCarthy made mistakes and had unfortunate personality traits, he was really a better man than his vindictive critics, and certainly more sincerely patriotic than the Communist enemies he sought to expose.

To truly understand this history, it is necessary at the outset for any student to make two crucial distinctions:

1. McCarthy vs. ‘McCarthyism’ — Propagandists of the Left, including journalists and academics, have made Joe McCarthy a symbol of things for which he was not even remotely responsible. Joe McCarthy did not create a “Red Scare.” Concerns about Communist penetration of the federal government, and about Soviet espionage, existed before anyone outside Wisconsin had ever heard of Joe McCarthy. He was not repsonsible for “blacklisting” anyone in Hollywood or getting Communist teachers fired from public schools. Investigations of Communist subversion undertaken by the FBI and the House Committee on Un-American Activities preceded Joe McCarthy’s arrival in the Senate and continued for years after McCarthy was dead and buried in a Wisconsin grave. However, by demonizing McCarthy, and making him a scarecrow symbol for alleged wrongs that he had nothing to do with, leftists have attached to McCarthy’s name a radioactive taint that makes it difficult for people to separate the complex Man from the simplistic Myth.
2. Espionage vs. Subversion — This is arguably the greatest stumbling block to understanding the dangerous Soviet-backed conspiracy that Joe McCarthy sought to expose. Many people erroneously believe that McCarthy was hunting for “spies,” but this is a gross misconception, both of what the Communist Party (CPUSA) was about and of what McCarthy was investigating. As was clearly evident to investigators at the time, and as has since been documented by information from Soviet archives and from declassified U.S. government sources, the CPUSA was at all times an instrument of Soviet policy. This was especially so during the era of Stalin’s dictatorship, when deviation from the Party line could be quite literally fatal. Beyond the (very real) spying conducted by CPUSA members — including clandestine “underground” members — there were also American Communists who sought to influence U.S. policy in a pro-Soviet direction, at a time when Stalin’s reign of terror extended across Eastern Europe and when Communists were actively advocating a violent worldwide Marxist-Leninist revolution. It was the network of pro-Soviet influencers, as agents of subversion, that was the real target of McCarthy’s investigations.

Years ago, I interviewed M. Stanton Evans, author of the definitive biography, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies. Evans is a man who knew Bill Buckley well, and who helped draft the famous “Sharon Statement” that was in effect the charter of the modern American conservative movement. No living person knows more about Joe McCarthy than does Stan Evans.

After listening to Evans describe his research, during our interview I pointed out the distinction between espionage and subversion and Evans’s eyes lit up with excitement: “Yes! Exactly! You get it!”

What McCarthy was trying to uncover was the mystery of how and why Soviet agents inside the U.S. government had gone undetected for so long. Once anyone begins to seek answers to that question — even today, more than two decades after the Evil Empire imploded under the weight of its own folly — certain conclusions quickly become obvious: There were people in government who did not want these secret Soviet agents exposed, people who saw no need for caution toward employing CPUSA members (or members of Communist-backed front groups) in key government positions.

This seems to list out more cases, and some spin later applied to them to make him look worse:

The Vindication of Joseph McCarthy - The Objective Standard

Examines the myths and facts surrounding Joseph McCarthy and his efforts to expose communist infiltration into the U.S. government in the 1950s.

theobjectivestandard.com

Important Background Truths
Desiring to protect the reputations of those not yet proven to be Communists or Soviet spies, McCarthy did not name names in public hearings.34 For example, he would bring to the attention of the Senate and/or the public details of case number 17, seeking to show Communist loyalties without divulging the individual’s name. In the absence of knowing the individual’s identity, it was exceedingly difficult for journalists or historians to fact-check the specific accusations. Related, some of McCarthy’s hearings were held in executive session, records of which were sealed by the Senate for fifty years, not opened to the public until 2003.

Today, from some of the above sources, especially FBI files, we know the identities of the parties involved as well as a great deal of the security intel then available on them. We know, therefore, what McCarthy knew.

Second, strongly suspected in McCarthy’s day and known with absolute certainty in ours, the CPUSA was controlled from Moscow and was an instrument of Soviet policy.35 For example, when the Soviets signed a nonaggression pact with Hitler, the CPUSA continued to take orders from Moscow and opposed U.S. aid to those battling Nazi Germany. Haynes and Klehr, based on extensive research in Soviet archives, wrote, “The essence of American communism was loyalty to Stalin.”36

Third, hundreds of CPUSA members worked for and spied on the U.S. government, reporting information to Soviet Intelligence.37 Haynes and Klehr noted, there were “hundreds of American Communists who abetted Soviet espionage . . . the party chief himself [Earl Browder (“Helmsman”)] knowingly and purposely assisted Soviet spies . . . espionage was a regular activity of the American Communist Party.”38

CPUSA membership on the part of U.S. government employees, although not prima facie evidence of spying, meant loyalty not to the United States but to the Soviet Union—and it meant the distinct possibility of spying. In brief, CPUSA membership by government officials constituted a substantial security risk.

McCarthy sought merely to remove such individuals from government employment—not to incarcerate them in Leavenworth, nor deny them employment in innocuous private-sector jobs unrelated to defense or government secrets, nor to hound or besmirch them in perpetuity—but only to fire them from their government posts.

McCarthy had the funny idea that neither Soviet agents nor known Communists should be working for the U.S. government.

These are just my quick looks, which paint a very different picture than what you suggest.

 

[JagerIV]

I'm not sure if this should be a different post or not, but its not quite in the same discussion as the previous one, but is in line with this being the generic Joseph McCarthy thread. This article seems to summarize where the right is currently on McCarthy:

On Joe McCarthy, Washington Post Gets It Embarrassingly Wrong

The headline of Jonathan Zimmerman's article in the Washington Post,

www.americanthinker.com

The headline of Jonathan Zimmerman's article in the Washington Post, "How Trump finally turned Republicans against McCarthyism," alerted me to the possibility that Zimmerman has never spoken to a Republican in the wild.

The subhead, "After nearly 70 years, Republicans have stopped defending Joe McCarthy," confirmed my suspicions. Zimmerman insists that the "new consensus" among Republicans is that "McCarthyism was, in fact, a massive, unpardonable assault on freedom, fairness and the rule of law." This is nuts. In reality, McCarthy's status among Republicans is higher now than it has been since his untimely death in 1957...

As counter-evidence, allow me to cite a Facebook posting of my own from last week. Above parallel photos of Joe McCarthy and James Comey, each with his right hand raised, I wrote, "The difference between James Comey et al. and Joe McCarthy? McCarthy's targets actually were colluding with the Russians. Time to retire the word 'McCarthyism.'"

Unlike Zimmerman, who teaches education at the University of Pennsylvania when not writing silly articles for the Post, I live on the border of two very red states, Kansas and Missouri. For many years now, I have been interacting with Republicans in their native habitat on a regular basis. Many of the responders to my post, perhaps most, are actual "friends," not just Facebook friends. They are real people with real lives, not trolls or Russian bots.

To my surprise, 125 people "liked" my post, easily the record for a political post of mine on Facebook and about five times the norm. Some sample responses:

Everyone Joe accused of being a commie were in fact card carrying commies. Joe was right and he's been vindicated for going after all their leftist commie loving traitors.

I have been called vile things for pointing out the Joe was correct. Funny, that information is left out of the discussion.

I hate seeing people on the right, who should know better, talk about McCarthyism. The only problem with McCarthy is that he didn't get enough of them.

McCarthy was right and he was a hero.

McCarthyism was just anti-Communism against real Russian spies like Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and many other traitors in government.

After the USSR imploded, KGB files published as the Venona Papers, confirmed McCarthy's "unfounded" allegations. Google it.

 

[Zachowon]

So, Ike dealt what he did with McCarthy because just because he was right, doesn't mean fear mongering the populace should be done.

 

[JagerIV]

So, Ike dealt what he did with McCarthy because just because he was right, doesn't mean fear mongering the populace should be done.

Have you considered Ike might just have been wrong? What McCarthy actually did from what I've read seems pretty darn mild on the fear mongering scale: he mostly just pushed that known communists shouldn't work for the government. Is that some unacceptable line?

If your line of "unacceptable" is "trying to keep possible agents and others of questionable loyalty", if that's your line, well, you've set yourself up as the designated looser.

 

[ATP]

Have you considered Ike might just have been wrong? What McCarthy actually did from what I've read seems pretty darn mild on the fear mongering scale: he mostly just pushed that known communists shouldn't work for the government. Is that some unacceptable line?

If your line of "unacceptable" is "trying to keep possible agents and others of questionable loyalty", if that's your line, well, you've set yourself up as the designated looser.

Indeed.Soviets never try to cover fact that their goal is turn entire Earth into commie state.It is suicidal for any state to not keep commies from their goverment.