Annie Lee Moss
Posted on 11/09/2005 4:28:47 PM PST by smoothsailing
DANNY OCEAN DEFENDS THE RATHER NETWORK
By Ann Coulter 33 minutes ago
The most cosseted, self-indulgent, worthless people in the universe are worried their suffering has been downgraded. For 50 years Hollywood drama queens have churned out plays, movies, TV shows, books, poems, allegories, museum exhibits, personal testimonials, dioramas, interpretive dances, wood carvings, cave paintings, needlepoint wall hangings and scatological limericks about their victimization at the hands of a brute named Joe McCarthy. Schoolchildren who will learn nothing about George Washington, Thomas Edison or Paul Revere are forced to read chapter and verse about the black night of fascism (BNOF) under McCarthy.
But half a century of myth-making later, one little book comes out and gives the contrary view -- and Hollywood thinks it's Treblinka.
George Clooney, writer and director of the rebuttal, claims he was driven to make the movie "Good Night, and Good Luck" because "a book came out about how great McCarthy was."
Q: Ann Coulter's "Treason"?
GC: Yes.
Needless to say I was shocked to learn that George Clooney can read. Liberals haven't been so shocked by a book since "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
So, apparently, we must revisit the BNOF under McCarthy one more time. (Ethical dilemma: Would you write a book to set the record straight on Joseph McCarthy knowing that it might give rise to yet another lame George Clooney movie?)
Clooney said of his small contribution to the "McCarthyism" industry: "I realized that we had to be incredibly careful with the facts, because if we got any of them wrong, they could say it's all horse****. So I had to double-source every scene."
I don't intend to see his movie because -- except for the McCarthy parts -- it sounds like a snoozefest. (Half the reviewers so far have said "good night" to Clooney, and the other half have said "good luck.") And despite all those "double-sources," in addition to getting the big facts wrong (about America and about the Soviet Union), Clooney got all the little facts wrong, too. I guess he borrowed some of Al Franken's "fact-checkers."
As even liberal reviewers have noted, it was hardly an act of bravery for Edward R. Murrow to attack McCarthy. The New York Times was attacking McCarthy, The New York Post was attacking McCarthy and The Washington Post was attacking McCarthy. Every known news outlet was attacking McCarthy. McCarthy was in a pitched battle for his life, his career and the fate of the nation. Murrow merely jumped on the liberal bandwagon -- and rather late in the game. (You want bravery? Try sitting all the way through "Solaris.")
I gather the movie's two examples of McCarthy's perfidy are the cases of Annie Lee Moss and Milo Radulovich. As described in detail on Pages 62-64 of "Treason," Moss was a proved Communist Party member -- who happened to be working in the Code Room of the Pentagon. It was an act of sheer madness, like, say, putting a member of al-Qaida at the Pentagon today or putting Pat Leahy on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Oh wait ...
Moss put on a big Amos 'n' Andy show for a Senate committee, delighting racist liberals who happily proclaimed Moss too simpleminded to be a communist. Only thanks to McCarthy, who ignored the barrage of calumnies from liberals, Moss was moved to a less sensitive position at the Pentagon.
As for Milo Radulovich, he had absolutely nothing to do with McCarthy. McCarthy never mentioned his name. So maybe liberals have finally found the one liberal in the '50s who was not on the payroll of the Soviet Union. I don't know and I don't care.
Amusingly, Clooney said in an interview that Alger Hiss was "probably" a communist spy. By now, I believe even the Nation magazine has been forced to admit Hiss was more than that. But, Clooney says, the point is McCarthy "was wrong about 99 percent of them."
If McCarthy was "wrong about 99 percent of them," when are we going to get a movie about one of the 99 percent? I might go see that movie.
Clooney reverts to the standard Hollywood talking point, saying: "(M)ore important than that, (McCarthy) was wrong every time he denied people their civil liberties."
Ah yes, the old civil liberties canard. Apparently, the only period worse than the BNOF under McCarthy is the current BNOF under President George Bush. This was followed by the usual number of specific examples of civil liberties that had been denied: zero. Liberals churn out hysterical slander daily, but insist on acting like they are the ones under attack.
The only people being tortured are those of us forced to endure the egos of Hollywood fantasists who profess left-wing views to prove they are deep thinkers. Come to think of it, the current BNOF is a lot like the original BNOF under McCarthy.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
OK. Now I know. Thanks. You grew up in a nice place. did you do any salt water fishing?
You liberal fat chicks crack me up.
No, I have not. If you have faclets from it, that are relevant, feel free to post them.
She's right about this. I did it and it wasn't ~shudder~ pretty.
We had a house in Kill Devil Hills until last fall, and for many years the beaches on the Outer Banks were my refuge.
We had fresh fish for breakfast on many mornings following my sunrise forays. Of course, I had to catch, clean and cook.
George Clooney’s Clueless Movie
by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Oct 14, 2005
If George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck is the best shot the left can unload on Joe McCarthy these days, the famous Red hunter is well on his way to a thorough rehabilitation. Ann Coulter has already begun the process in Treason and Stan Evans’ much anticipated book—due out next year—is likely to boost the late Wisconsin senator’s stock even further.
The movie is really about CBS’s star journalist, Edward R. Murrow (played by David Strathairn), and how he went after McCarthy, who is featured only in film footage from the archives. As Clooney (and most historians) would have it, the senator was a vicious, unscrupulous bully who ruined the lives of scores of innocent people by labeling them Reds. So where are the bloody corpses in Clooney’s movie? They’re totally missing. In fact, Clooney—who directed and helped write the movie—doesn’t show a single person who was done in by the senator’s supposedly reckless charges. Not one!
Murrow’s Whitewash
Nor is it even clear from the movie that McCarthy ever seriously accused anyone unjustly. He might have, but Clooney certainly doesn’t prove it. There are hints that McCarthy may have been wrong in charging Annie Lee Moss, the Pentagon code clerk, with having been a Communist Party member. But the Clooney picture is actually opaque on that point and the truth is McCarthy was absolutely right in charging her with party membership (see more on Moss below).
The Murrow character, who uses the journalist’s real words, does suggest that McCarthy was engaged in smear-mongering when he laid the wood to the American Civil Liberties Union, insisting it had been labeled a “front” for the Communists. Murrow’s retort was that the ACLU was not on any subversive list of the federal government. In Murrow’s view (and clearly in Clooney’s), that rebuttal clinched the case that the Wisconsin lawmaker was an irresponsible demagogue. But, as we shall note shortly, the ACLU was rightly considered a subversive organization during the early 1930s, the period the senator was referring to.
What’s stranger still is that Clooney dwells at some length on the case of Lt. Milo Radulovich, on the verge of being ousted as a security risk from the Air Force Reserve because two of his relatives were radicals, possibly Communists.
More...
http://tinyurl.com/75lmz
Annie Lee Moss
Then you can read it at your leisure, and decide for yourself what's relevent.
Oh, I thought you had some goodies at the tip of your tongue. I saw the newsreels of McCarthy ranting that he had a list of x numbers of Commies in the state department. It turned out to be a lie.
George would not do that in a million years.
The only lie would be if you said you knew what you were talking about.
LOL. I admit I don't know enough to take you on. But if you are right, that McCarthy was right, and had the goods, then that would amaze me. He must have had an imcompetent staff.
Isn't the New American the Bircher or other such kook rag? Try to find something from some more creditable rag.
bttt
Attacking the source. Just like the other anti-McCarthy nuts. Well, there are plenty of good books on McCarthy that contain the same information, from people like Brent Bozell and William F. Buckley. Sorry if they're too right-wing and biased for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.