The INCOMPARABLE Ann Coulter - How 9-11 happened

[dude1394]

How 9-11 happened

April 1, 2004

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.
Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN
The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.
In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.
President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.
In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.
Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.
In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.
Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.
On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.
Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."
Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN
In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.
President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.
In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN
Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.
On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.
Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.

[EricaLubarsky]

[Mavdog]

Ann Coulter has some very, very strong rose colored glasses. Her vision and opinion are both flawed. Sure, in her mind everybody in the US Govenment was to blame (especially Clinton) except GWBush. She even blames Carter for "letting" the Shah of Iran be overthrown by the Iranian people! How did she miss including blame for the Germans and the 72 Olympic attack? sheesh...

Ann fails to understand that 9/11 happened because there were people who were hell bent on throwing their lives away in a savage act. Could the attack have been prevented? Only if a) the terrorists never came under the spell of fanatical religious leaders, b) the terrorists never made it into the US, and c) the terrorists were prevented from getting on the planes.

Ann Coulter's picture should be in the dictionary under the listing for the phrase "partisan hack".

[Epitome22]

And judging from other things I've heard her say not quoted in the article, bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant, uber-fascist psychopath.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
And judging from other things I've heard her say not quoted in the article, bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant, uber-fascist psychopath.

She also believes that Joseph McCarthy was an American hero. As a fourth generation American jew who's grandfather was driven from work (and San Francisco) because of a false accusation of being a communist, I hardly agree with her.

She is attempting to rewrite history in radical ways. Unfortunately for her, historians still have the evidence recorded and people like myself still have family that remember.

[Drbio]

Just remember...left extremists and right extremists kind of balance each other out.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Just remember...left extremists and right extremists kind of balance each other out.

both scare me.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

She also believes that Joseph McCarthy was an American hero. As a fourth generation American jew who's grandfather was driven from work (and San Francisco) because of a false accusation of being a communist, I hardly agree with her.

She is attempting to rewrite history in radical ways. Unfortunately for her, historians still have the evidence recorded and people like myself still have family that remember.

Josephy McCarthy it just so happens was right. There WERE communists at the highest levels of our government. Ann is harsh but meticulously factual. For example there were no downdisms... in the above article. They were all true statements. She's certainly not politically correct, but I'll take here over Maureen Dowd who is more than willing to make up quotes anyday.

Ann Coulter is not trying to "re-write" history, she is correcting history. If you have taken the time to read any of her books, they are meticulously documented. Nothing like the michael moore screeds that is the darling of the left.

[EricaLubarsky]

I didnt know that history needed to be corrected. I thought that the evidence was pretty correct as it was.

I also never knew that there was a shred of evidence that America was in a shred of danger of becoming communist. I did hear her say that what McCarthy did was heroic.

Not only was what McCarthy did, unconstitutional it was wrong. There was no need to go on the witch hunt, there was no need to do unconstitutional things to "purge" communists and America would have been a better place if my grandfather had not been blacklisted and chased out of San Francisco.

[EricaLubarsky]

Here's the deal. I know Michael Moore is full of crap. Ann Coulter also has more than questionable citation but she is just "no politically correct"? In my book both Moore and Coulter are irresponsible journalists.

Here is one good example. In another act of "revisionist history" she attacks Max Cleland (who opposed Bush) by painting him as an irresponsible hippy who lost three of his limbs in Vietnam by playing drinking games with grenades.

she says

"Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam...he lost three limbs in an accident during a routine non-combat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman. ... Luckily for Cleland’s political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam."

The military record records

On June 9, 1968, the U.S. Army awarded Capt. Max Cleland a Silver Star "for gallantry in action" at the battle of Khe Sanh, one of the war’s fiercest firefights...he distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action. ... When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

[dude1394]

Show me the link. I believe that ann is correct and I actually read Max Cleland confirm it I believe.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Show me the link. I believe that ann is correct and I actually read Max Cleland confirm it I believe.

do you want the Military's report of why he got the silver star or the slander she was speaking against the war hero?

Ann Coulter is not guilty of lying- only stetching the truth. The truth was that Cleland did not receive his award because of the incident with the grenade (which she greatly stretched). HE got his award for honorable and valorous action in combat.

the 8/1/99 Esquire Magazine notes: "Cleland lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam when a grenade accidentally detonated after he and another soldier jumped off a helicopter in a combat zone."

Peter Carlson of the Washington Post also wrote:

"On April 8, 1968, during the siege of Khe Sanh, he stepped off a helicopter and saw a grenade at his feet. He thought he'd dropped it. He was wrong. When he reached down to pick it up, it exploded, ripping off both legs and his right hand. He was 25."

[dude1394]

I want the link to your references please. I will find ann's as well.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I want the link to your references please. I will find ann's as well.

Should I look up the periodical index, and fax it? I havent gone to the library but I will if you keep trying to revise what happened and what she said I will go and fax you all the pages. Her entire book isnt online so I cannot just give you a webpage where you can zip to with little effort.

Im sitting here with ASAP (Infotrack) open from my college library. I can't directly link you the articles that way so I would have to go find the archived articles.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Show me the link. I believe that ann is correct and I actually read Max Cleland confirm it I believe.

This shrill political hack deserves no respect nor credibility. She makes things up.

Here's the Coulter article in which she "defends" GWBush by way of demeeaning/attacking/ridiculing those who merely ask critical questions:
"Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors."

Coulter column

Here's an interview with Cleland in which this is stated:

"On April 8, 1968, during the siege of Khe Sanh, he stepped off a helicopter and saw a grenade at his feet. He thought he'd dropped it. He was wrong. When he reached down to pick it up, it exploded, ripping off both legs and his right hand. He was 25."

Cleland interview

BTW Joseph McCarthy was responsible for savagely destroying many good American's lives for no reason other than their having different political beliefs than what he thought "patriotic" and "American values". Joseph McCarthy was a cancer that if not having been removed would have seriously harmed America. Thank goodness he was exposed and stopped.

[dude1394]

It seems that the Boston Globe doesn't agree with you or the cleland story you linked to. No one's saying that he didn't serve well, it's just that he wasn't injured in a heated battle. But in an accident. What Ann is talking about is how Max and Terry McCaullife and the democrats are so busy belittling the services of the National Guard (I wonder why) when he was injured in the same type of accident that many National Guardsmen face.

But the democrats have insisited in "sexing up" his accident for political purposes.

One of the most detailed accounts of Cleland's life was written by Jill Zuckman in a lengthy piece for the Boston Globe Sunday magazine on Aug. 3, 1997:

Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future.

Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years – including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).

"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)

"[Cleland] didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)

"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)

The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to the Boston Globe reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."

And from Clelands own campaign site. It talks about his bravery in battle. But he was not injured while in battle.s

This is in response to the letter to the editor (Sunday, Oct. 20) that inquired how Sen. Max Cleland was injured in Vietnam and whether or not he received any commendations in the war.

Army General Order 4361, dated June 9, 1968, states that the Silver Star was awarded to U.S. Army Capt. Max Cleland "for gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in Vietnam." In 1968, then Capt. Cleland was in action at the battle of Khe Sanh. Below is the language contained in his Silver Star Order:

"Awarded: Silver Star; Date Action: 4 April 1968; Theater: Republic of Vietnam
"Action: For gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968, while serving as communications officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Calvary during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.
"When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

"Authority: By direction of the President, under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 9 July 1968."

The action cited occurred on April 4, 1968, four days before the grenade explosion that cost Sen. Cleland both legs and an arm.

As has been widely reported in the Atlanta Constitution beginning in 1968, then-Capt. Cleland, an Army Signal Officer, volunteered for infantry service to relieve the stranded Marines and members of the Army's 1st Cavalry at the battle of Khe Sanh.

While disembarking from a transport helicopter, Capt. Cleland reached for a grenade he believed had become dislodged from his web gear. Later it was discovered that the grenade belonged to a young soldier new to the theater. That soldier had improperly prepared the grenade pin for easy detonation and had dropped it while coming off the helicopter. The grenade exploded and severely injured Capt. Cleland.

The Silver Star is the third-highest valor decoration of the United States. Sen. Cleland also was awarded a Soldier's Medal, Bronze Star, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960), Vietnam Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal and Parachutist Badge.

Thank you for your interest in Sen. Cleland and your interest in the campaign.

[Mavdog]

It seems that the Boston Globe doesn't agree with you or the cleland story you linked to. No one's saying that he didn't serve well, it's just that he wasn't injured in a heated battle. But in an accident. What Ann is talking about is how Max and Terry McCaullife and the democrats are so busy belittling the services of the National Guard (I wonder why) when he was injured in the same type of accident that many National Guardsmen face.

Cleland's account doesn't conflict with any the links you posted.
National guardsmen at fort Dix don't run around the base with live grenades.
Coulter portrays his injuries as the result of playing around. He was in battle and given 7 medals in Vietnam, which Coulter clearly seems to lack respect for.
But then being a partisan hack and Cleland is on the other side, what else would Ann Coulter do? She just can't stop herself.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Cleland's account doesn't conflict with any the links you posted.
National guardsmen at fort Dix don't run around the base with live grenades.
Coulter portrays his injuries as the result of playing around. He was in battle and given 7 medals in Vietnam, which Coulter clearly seems to lack respect for.
But then being a partisan hack and Cleland is on the other side, what else would Ann Coulter do? She just can't stop herself.

No what coulter lacks respect for is Terry McCauliffe and Max Cleland running around besmirching Bush's service in the guard. At any time Bush(or any number of guardsmen) could have had the same type of life-threatening injuries. Especially Bush who was flying a fighter plane. That's why Ann doesn't let the democrats get away with "sexing up" his record. Nowhere in here column does she not show respect for his service, but modifying his record to be losing a limb while in combat to make political points is what she is pointing out.

His injuries were NOT received from a battle injury however the democrats are portraying it as so to score higher political points, that's what she is pointing out.

[dude1394]

BTW Joseph McCarthy was responsible for savagely destroying many good American's lives for no reason other than their having different political beliefs than what he thought "patriotic" and "American values". Joseph McCarthy was a cancer that if not having been removed would have seriously harmed America. Thank goodness he was exposed and stopped.

Unfortunately McCarthy was right as this critic of McCarthy admits. But like kerry, he didn't like the way he "went about" exposing communists in high levels of our government. And although Kerry voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it. And kerry voted TO invade Iraq before he railed against it, McCarthy was honestly trying to protect america from a communist threat that was real.

McCarthy

Author's Notes and Addendum

Last Updated June 12, 2000

It gets more interesting toward the bottom. If anything, please be sure to read from where the bold starts..

I (Jesse Friedman) wrote this report in November, 1996, for my 8th Grade Social Studies research essay. I hate to wax sentimental (and despise even more using old cliches), but I never would have guessed that 34 months later (I did the math), nearly 64,000 people have seen this page. I've received e-mails from Malaysia to Massachussets and nearly everywhere in between. Most people tend to agree with me (which I must admit makes me happy), many people thank me as their "rescue source" for the 2nd period Honors English class paper on "The Crucible" due tomorrow, and I've even restarted talking to one or two forgotten friends. Amazing what putting a report on the Internet can do.

But what interests me more than praise and agreement (although that's perfectly fine by me, too) is the sizable and very vocal minority of e-mailers who disagree with me. Often they are insultative, usually they don't quite get what I'm saying (more on that later), but on occasion I have learned a bunch from my critics. Once I wrote this paper, I tuned out to this entire issue. What a mistake. In the last few years, CIA and KGB declassified information has confirmed to some degree McCarthy's accusations of Communist infiltration in our government.

Here's what's important! I am not calling Senator Joe McCarthy a liar. He was right. The problem is, he didn't know it! Recently declassified information has proved him technically correct, but in his entire senatorial career, as I quote from above, "he never once was able to directly convict a single suspected Communist of a crime." But that's not even my main point. My main objection is the atmosphere of fear of the accusation of being a supposed Communist which McCarthy strongly fostered. He might have been right, but he indirectly violated the nation's freedom of speech.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: dude1394

Unfortunately McCarthy was right as this critic of McCarthy admits. But like kerry, he didn't like the way he "went about" exposing communists in high levels of our government. And although Kerry voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it. And kerry voted TO invade Iraq before he railed against it, McCarthy was honestly trying to protect america from a communist threat that was real.

McCarthy

Author's Notes and Addendum

Last Updated June 12, 2000

It gets more interesting toward the bottom. If anything, please be sure to read from where the bold starts..

I (Jesse Friedman) wrote this report in November, 1996, for my 8th Grade Social Studies research essay. I hate to wax sentimental (and despise even more using old cliches), but I never would have guessed that 34 months later (I did the math), nearly 64,000 people have seen this page. I've received e-mails from Malaysia to Massachussets and nearly everywhere in between. Most people tend to agree with me (which I must admit makes me happy), many people thank me as their "rescue source" for the 2nd period Honors English class paper on "The Crucible" due tomorrow, and I've even restarted talking to one or two forgotten friends. Amazing what putting a report on the Internet can do.

But what interests me more than praise and agreement (although that's perfectly fine by me, too) is the sizable and very vocal minority of e-mailers who disagree with me. Often they are insultative, usually they don't quite get what I'm saying (more on that later), but on occasion I have learned a bunch from my critics. Once I wrote this paper, I tuned out to this entire issue. What a mistake. In the last few years, CIA and KGB declassified information has confirmed to some degree McCarthy's accusations of Communist infiltration in our government.

Here's what's important! I am not calling Senator Joe McCarthy a liar. He was right. The problem is, he didn't know it! Recently declassified information has proved him technically correct, but in his entire senatorial career, as I quote from above, "he never once was able to directly convict a single suspected Communist of a crime." But that's not even my main point. My main objection is the atmosphere of fear of the accusation of being a supposed Communist which McCarthy strongly fostered. He might have been right, but he indirectly violated the nation's freedom of speech.

With the release of the Venona papers many folks have re-examined McCarthy as the author above has.

Another historian re-review:

Joseph McCarthy : Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
by Arthur Herman (Author)

Amazon.com
"Today [Joseph McCarthy] exists in most people's imagination almost solely as an established icon of evil," writes biographer Arthur Herman. His very name has become an epithet: McCarthyism. Yet Herman believes it's time to reexamine the legacy, and in a brave, eponymously titled biography, he argues persuasively that "McCarthy was making a good point badly." Communism represented "a massive and intractable security problem" for the United States during the 1940s and 1950s; furthermore, "Democratic administrations had been unconscionably lax in dealing with an internal Communist threat." Herman doesn't mean to excuse McCarthy's recklessness--only to offer a balanced portrait of the man and his times. Joseph McCarthy simply couldn't have been written before the late 1990s--partly because the subject still stirs fiery passions, but also because Herman makes use of archival material that only became available after the collapse of the Soviet Union. His reassessment will no doubt be met with scorn by many leftists: "McCarthy was always a more important figure to American liberals than to conservatives. The nightmarish image of his heavy, swarthy, sweaty features haunted the imaginations of thousands of anti-anti-Communists throughout the fifties and sixties." Herman usefully points out that McCarthy actually had nothing to do with many aspects of the anti-Communist activities commonly grouped together under the label of McCarthyism, including the House Un-American Activities Committee, probes into Hollywood politics, and university blacklisting. (He also humanizes his subject: Did you know McCarthy was "a minor figure in the Kennedy circle," even dating two of the Kennedy daughters and becoming godfather to Bobby and Ethel's first child?) In the end, Herman offers an outstanding, cool-headed, and much-needed reappraisal of a poorly understood man. --John J. Miller

[Mavdog]

McCarthy was wrong. The mere act of being a member of the Communist Party does not make that individual anti-american. Even his collegues censured him.

Interesting history footnote: McCarthy's destruction of the State dept. Asia desk by his labeling everyone there as "communist sympathisers" was a major contibutor to the misunderstanding/mishandling of Vietnam.

I'd try to find a 9th grade social studies report to refute your 8th grade school paper, but there's really no need as the 8th grade paper doesn't contain anything of value.

[dude1394]

Others do not agree with you. but do agree with the 8th grade paper. And as usual Ann Coulter is making NOTHING up.

The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors
by Herbert Romerstein, Eric Breindel

Amazon.com
Some historians and journalists are starting to regard the cold-war-era American Communist Party as nothing more than a quaint club of polite if misguided ideologues. In The Venona Secrets, Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel intend to create a new impression of treacherous Americans "who willfully gave their primary allegiance to a foreign power, the USSR.... For Communists, true patriotism meant helping to make the world a better place by advancing the interests of the Soviet Union in any way possible." By using the now-celebrated Venona documents--top-secret Soviet cables sent between Moscow and Washington, D.C., in the 1940s--Romerstein and Breindel tell a frightening story of how deeply spies penetrated the U.S. government. There was the famous case of Alger Hiss, whose guilt as a Soviet spy is now beyond doubt thanks to Venona. Less well known, but still important, were the roles of Harry Hopkins in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's White House and Harry Dexter White in the Treasury Department.

Romerstein, a veteran cold warrior, and Breindel, the former editorial-page editor of The New York Post (he died before the book's publication, at the age of 42), are not the first to discuss the Venona papers in depth--readers of
The Haunted Wood, by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, and Whittaker Chambers, by Sam Tanenhaus, will know much of the story. Yet this may its most aggressive telling. Romerstein and Breindel include necessary chapters on the Hiss-Chambers dispute, the Elizabeth Bentley spy ring, and the charges against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They are particularly forceful in arguing that journalist I.F. Stone and atomic scientist Robert Oppenheimer were Soviet spies. Another target--and a provocative one--is Albert Einstein, whom they describe as "tainted" by his indirect ties to Soviet intelligence. The Venona Secrets will make heads turn, and it will show that the debates over the cold war and its meaning can be as hot now as they were then. --John J. Miller --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.


In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage
by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Left-wing historians' sympathy for American communism is an example of ideological bias and self-deception comparable to Holocaust denial, according to this uncompromising manifesto. Haynes and Klehr, historians and authors of The Secret World of American Communism, rehash major Cold War controversies-including Moscow's financial subsidies to the American Communist Party, the espionage cases against the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, and American communists' support for the Hitler-Stalin pact-in light of material from recently opened Soviet archives. But their focus is on the response of what they see as a left-wing "revisionist" academic establishment to new revelations about Stalin's crimes and American communists' subservience to Moscow. Taking on leading history journals and prominent scholars like Ellen Schrecker, Eric Foner and Victor Navasky, the authors accuse revisionists of ignoring, downplaying and distorting the mounting evidence of communist espionage and subversion in the United States. Instead of facing facts, they argue, revisionists have propagated a mythology of American communism as a benign, idealistic, home-grown progressive movement destroyed by McCarthyite persecution, a caricature that "resembles more the chaotic New Left of the late 1960s than the rigid Leninist party it was." The authors champion a liberal, anticommunist "traditionalist" historiography, asserting that America's post-war campaign against communist subversion (McCarthy's excesses aside) was "a rational and understandable response to a real danger to American democracy." While their confrontational tone and penchant for academic score-settling will inflame rather than settle these rancorous debates, their incisive analysis and meticulous attention to evidence make this a formidable rejoinder to left-wing orthodoxies.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

[EricaLubarsky]

You support McCarthy? If you are willing to accept that then there is nothing else I can say.

Condoning his action is condoning unconstitutional action in the midst of hysteria and to me that is unpatriotic. Condining his action is also condoning what happened to my family.

I guess us liberals are a little too caught up in the constitution and "rights" to see the bigger picture, eh?

But the democrats have insisited in "sexing up" his accident for political purposes.

I hardly think the third highest honor bestoed by the nation for bravery can be "sexed up". If you read above, it is clear that Cleland deserved the award for insanely placing the life of others before himself. It's irresponsible reporting that connects his loss of limbs and his war heroics and it is also shameful of Coulter to say of Cleland

"Luckily, for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam."

when he was a war hero. When are the political parties going to stop character assassination. Cleland politically disagrees with Bush and the hysterical, conspiracy-theorist right jumps on him and deceptively reports that a true war hero and true American was just "lucky" that he lost his limbs in Vietnam. The fact is he served his country heroically and character assassins are going to waste all the time talking about the grenade incident.

[dude1394]

You do not think that McCarthy should have adamantly tried to uncover communist spies in the highest levels of our government?? No you liberals are not willing to look at McCarthy through anything but the screaming of "mccarthyism". Facts don't matter. No matter that McCarthy was right?

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: dude1394
You do not think that McCarthy should have adamantly tried to uncover communist spies in the highest levels of our government?? No you liberals are not willing to look at McCarthy through anything but the screaming of "mccarthyism". Facts don't matter. No matter that McCarthy was right?

McCarthy wasn't right. He did what he did in the wrong way (violating the constitution) and there was no significant risk that communists ever posed to the American government. The authors that you mention are one of a very few historians that believe that communists really played a significant political role. Even John Earl Haynes admits

"the party has attracted more attention from politicians, scholars, and ordinary citizens than its size or political success would seem to warrant"

Its also important to remember that the "traditional" (as Haynes calls it) understanding of the communist threat came decades after those that believed that communists were a real threat. Haynes advocates going back to the model of Eleanor Bontecou, Vern Countryman, and Walter Gellhorn even though he is completely unaware of their writings. (says Ellen Shrecker of Harvard). The change in opinion came in the 60s and 70s as documents were released from the FBI and historians discovered that there was not a vast conspiracy as McCarthy had once believed.

According to Ellen Shrecker

Speaking of Hoover, perhaps the most serious omission in Haynes' survey is
his failure to look at the scholarship on the FBI. Given how central the
Bureau was in both providing information about American communism and
coordinating much of the campaign against it, it is hard to understand why
Haynes ignores it....

But, for some reason, complexity, nuance, and a willingness to see the
world in other than black and white seem alien to Haynes' view of history.
He seems unable to accept an interpretation of American communism that
looks at its achievements as well as its sins (I suppose Haynes would
prefer the word, "crimes," here). Accordingly, he treats those historians
(myself, I presume, included) who do not subscribe to his prosecutorial
perspective as apologists for the party. He does note the diversity of
views within the revisionist camp, but then goes on to say that "despite
these occasional disagreements, most of the revisionists shared a
hostility to capitalism, anti-Communism, and the American constitutional
order..They saw American Communists, whatever their faults, as kindred
spirits in the fight against capitalism and established American
institutions."

Yes there were some plans for espionage commited by communists (as well as others from all over the globe), but the majority of communists were more interested in living their lives fully. Haynes thinks that a few acts of espionage add up to a danger to the US. The fact is that the McCarthy era was just as much a black eye on America as the Japanese Internment camps were. In both cases the FBI was strong in managing threats and finding agents and in both cases the majority of people that were a victim of the policies were innocent.

[dude1394]

Although I'm not pretending to be an expert on this, the liberal attempt to completely demagogue McCarthy without being willing to re-look at these facts certainly makes me suspect the motives. And as I've already stated, you might not like the way Ann Coulter writes and frames things, but I haven't found a case where she was inaccurate.

http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/077718.htm
Here is another who you might recognize. And others.
"The full implications of Soviet espionage in the United States during and immediately after World War II are only now being realized. In yet another superbly fascinating volume, Haynes and Klehr make wondrous use of the evidence in the Venona cables to reveal the scope of this limited, but very real 'attack' which remained secret for too long."--Daniel Patrick Moynihan, author of Secrecy: The American Experience

And others...
"Haynes and Klehr have provided the most extensive evidence to date that the KGB had operatives at all levels of American society and government. . . . Haynes and Klehr . . . reveal a level of espionage in this country that only the most paranoid had dreamed of. . . . This is better than anything John le Carre could produce, because in this case, truth is really stranger than fiction. Highly recommended."--Edward Goedeken, Library Journal

"The authors systematically recount Venona's references to approximately 350 Soviet Spies in the U.S. government and industry--some of them highly placed. . . . Venona may open a fundamental revision of U.S. history."--Gilbert Taylor, Booklist

"This first comprehensive analysis of the 3,000 telegrams between Soviet spies in the US and their superiors in Moscow, decoded shortly after WWII, may well, as the authors believe, 'change the way we think about twentieth-century American history.' . . . The reverberations from this cool, balanced, and devastating appraisal will be heard for many years to come."--Kirkus Reviews

"Venona demands to be read . . . just to see that there were serious questions to be dealt with in the 1950s. It wasn't all witch hunts and fishing expeditions."--Henry S. Cohn, Federal Lawyer

[dude1394]

Also from Ellen Shrecker on the legacy of McCarthyism. I'm not so sure I share her views much....

Legacy of McCarthyism

The most obvious casualty was the American left. The institutional toll is clear. The Communist party, already damaged by internal problems, dwindled into insignificance and all the organizations associated with it disappeared. The destruction of the front groups and the left-led unions may well have had a more deleterious impact on American politics than the decline of the party itself. With their demise, the nation lost the institutional network that had created a public space where serious alternatives to the status quo could be presented. Moreover, with the disappearance of a vigorous movement on their left, moderate reform groups were more exposed to right-wing attacks and thus rendered less effective.

In the realm of social policy, for example, McCarthyism may have aborted much-needed reforms. As the nation's politics swung to the right after World War II, the federal government abandoned the unfinished agenda of the New Deal. Measures like national health insurance, a social reform embraced by the rest of the industrialized world, simply fell by the wayside. The left liberal political coalition that might have supported health reforms and similar projects was torn apart by the anti-Communist crusade. Moderates feared being identified with anything that seemed too radical, and people to the left of them were either unheard or under attack. McCarthyism further contributed to the attenuation of the reform impulse by helping to divert the attention of the labor movement, the strongest institution within the old New Deal coalition, from external organizing to internal politicking.

The impact of the McCarthy era was equally apparent in international affairs. Opposition to the cold war had been so thoroughly identified with communism that it was no longer possible to challenge the basic assumptions of American foreign policy without incurring suspicions of disloyalty. As a result, from the defeat of third-party presidential candidate Henry Wallace in the fall of 1948 until the early 1960s, effective public criticism of America's role in the world was essentially nonexistent. Within the government, the insecurities that McCarthyism inflicted on the State Department lingered for years, especially with regard to East Asia. Thus, for example, the campaign against the "loss" of China left such long-lasting scars that American policymakers feared to acknowledge the official existence of the People's Republic of China until Richard Nixon, who was uniquely impervious to charges of being soft on communism, did so as president in 1971. And it was in part to avoid a replay of the loss-of-China scenario that Nixon's Democratic predecessors, Kennedy and Johnson, dragged the United States so deeply into the quagmire of Vietnam.

[Mavdog]

The question Dude poses in the revisionist rehabilitation of the opportunistic Senator Joseph McCarthy is answered with one word.....none. That is the total number of people who were "uncovered" or "exposed" by McCarthy and convicted of betraying their country. He was a cancer.

Dude's use of amazon selling a book to prove McCarthy's just a patriotic American Senator who was right in their cause ('scuse me while I barf), as if the publication of a writer makes them somehow an authority and believable, leads me to these. I've found a couple of books for sale at amazon and wonder if we should give them any credibility and believe them too..

Alien Agenda
by Jim Marrs (Author

Jim Marrs is best known for Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy (1989), the book that Oliver Stone's film JFK was partially based on. Now Marrs attacks new mysteries and conspiracies in this extensive review of UFO history and government cover-ups. After describing his own UFO sighting near Jackson, Mississippi, in 1952, Marrs recounts his involvement with other UFO cases as a newspaper reporter and his suspicions that the U.S. government knows much more about aliens than it will admit. As his title indicates, the author has concluded that UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials of various types and with diverse motives. However, rather than taking that conclusion for granted, Marrs guides his readers through 50 years of UFO history that includes some less-traveled byways, off-ramps, and dead ends. He incorporates an ample amount of information from UFO books of the 1960s and 1970s--strange lights on the moon, the ancient-astronaut theories of Erich von Daniken, cattle mutilations, Nazi saucers at the South Pole, the contactees of the 1950s--and updates it credibly with UFO data from the 1980s and 1990s, providing a reasonable survey of abductions, secret underground UFO bases, the MJ-12 group, crop circles, remote viewing, and channeling. How can something as momentous as contact with aliens be kept secret? In an appendix, Marrs refers to the Bilderbergers and the Council on Foreign Relations as examples of how small groups of powerful individuals can withhold information and manipulate world events. The facts are mostly accurate, and the writing is crisp and journalistic. George Eberhart


The Founding Myths of Modern Israel
by Roger Garaudy, Theodore J. Okeefe

This one denies the Holocaust ever happened. There's no "editors review" to cut and give you, guess none of the editors could stomach it.

[dude1394]

MD, I do not claim to be an expert but somehow I do sort of respect Pat Moynihan's assertion:

"The full implications of Soviet espionage in the United States during and immediately after World War II are only now being realized. In yet another superbly fascinating volume, Haynes and Klehr make wondrous use of the evidence in the Venona cables to reveal the scope of this limited, but very real 'attack' which remained secret for too long."--Daniel Patrick Moynihan, author of Secrecy: The American Experience

[Mavdog]

McCarthy was 8 years after WW2. those spies mentioned, Rosenbergs for instance, had been years before McCarthy. Nixon had made a name for himself with Alger Hiss years before McCarthy.

McCarthy was a witchhunt that found no spies.

[dude1394]

MD you inspired me to go out and get something on venona. Picked up "Venona...Decoding Soviet Espionage in America.. Haynes/Klehr.

Thought I would skim to a secton on Joseph McCarthy...

Here is what they say in one of only 3 references to McCarthy.. Page 17... Basically they are speaking about the classified nature of the Venona messages and who might have happened if made public. Thought it interesting that the authors labled him a demoagogue however agree with some of his assertions...

"There were broader consequences, as well, of the decision to keep Venona secret. the overlapping issues of Communists in government, Soviet espionage, and the loyalty of American Communists quickly became a partisan battleground. Let by Replublican senator Joseph McCarthy...., some conservativs and partisan Republicans launched a comprehensive attack on the loyalties of the Roosevelt and Truman adminsitrations. Some painted the entire New Deal as a disguised Communist plot and depicted Dean Acheson, Truman's secretary of state, and George C. Marshall, the Army chief of staff under Roosevelt and secretary of state and secretary of defense under Truman, as pariticpants, in Senator McCarthy's words, in "a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the histroy of man. A consipiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving ofthe maledictions of all honest men." There is no basis in Venona for implicating Acheson or Marshall in a Communist conspiracy, but because the deciphered Venona messages were classified and unknown to the public, demagogues such as McCarthy had the opportunity to mix togetheraccurate information about betrayal by men such as Harry White and Alger Hiss with falsehoods about Acheson and Marshall that served partisan political goals.

They then go on to talk about how the communists were then depicted as complete innocents. Alger Hiss for example is pretty clearly labled a spy in this work.

A pretty meticulously annotated work.. For example in a list of Americans and U.S. Residents who had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies they say of Hiss:

Hiss, Alger: senior American diplomat and important asset of the GRU. cover name Ales... then in a note:
"Venona 1822 KGB Washington to Moscow, 30 March 1945...

[Mavdog]

Dude, McCarthy had nothing to do with Hiss.

Alger Hiss went to trial for perjury (not espionage) in 1949. McCarthy made his first speech about "the communist infiltration" in the 1950 campaign, with his reign of terror ending in 1953.

Harry White was Sof Treasury during the Marshall Plan and the planner of the IMF. Very strong capitalist.

McCarthy was a cancer. He was a sickness.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Dude, McCarthy had nothing to do with Hiss.

Alger Hiss went to trial for perjury (not espionage) in 1949. McCarthy made his first speech about "the communist infiltration" in the 1950 campaign, with his reign of terror ending in 1953.

Harry White was Sof Treasury during the Marshall Plan and the planner of the IMF. Very strong capitalist.

McCarthy was a cancer. He was a sickness.

zing