On page 330 of M. Stanton Evans' "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies." there appears the following statement of the author "...the Remington case made it clear that the alleged security crackdown under Truman was a myth. And if the Truman screeners could let the sharks slip through the netting, how likely were they to catch the minnows?" to which I added the following margin note "And how likely is it that the "minnows" would forever remain "minnows"?"
Some of you will know that I have been a student of this period of history for some time and have read extensively on the subject of Mr. McCarthy. My question to you gentlemen is this:
How many do you suppose there are who fully grasp the significance of what Ann Coulter in Treason and Mr. Evans in "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies."
Could it be that we would not have a communist China, and thus not had to fight the wars in Korea or Viet Nam. Could it be that we would would not have today a communist Cuba and thus not have had to deal with all that we have had to deal with as a result if we had actually had "someone at the state department actually representing the American interest?
Could it be that at leat some of these "minnows" who slipped through the net grew up to be full grown sharks themselves? How likely do you suppose it that they or their proteges might STILL be in place today?
Hell, they're in Congress now. They're called "the majority party."
Should read:
How many do you suppose there are who fully grasp the significance of what Ann Coulter in Treason and Mr. Evans in "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies." have exposed.
My thoughts are: 1) there was enough opposition to the Nationalist Government among our "intellectuals" and "progressives" (sympathizers maybe but not card-carrying Communists, com-symps) for Mao's "agrarian reform," that even without Soviet influence in government and elsewhere Mao would have had Washington's support and 2) Batista's government was not popular here (most of us probably never heard of him) and Castro was wildly popular in the media and among the usual "intellectuals" suspects ("wildly" maybe is a bit too much but the networks did compete with one another).
(There was the usual "our fault" claims, we made Mao and Castro turn to the Soviets.)
The key IMO is the silenced majority; to wit, no Internet and nothing like modern talk radio. Though even with both, the miracle of TV was fascinating and many of the journalists there had built their reputations in the War; maybe even with both the Internet and modern talk radio we would have lost the battle for public opinion.
I remember writing to the networks with complaints about bias only to receive a reply stating "We're professionals and you're not."
As the Contra-Sandinista war raged I realized that I did not know who were the good guys and who were the commies. I had by that time given up on network (and other) news. But I knew that it would take only a few seconds to get an answer to my question, I'll watch how the TV networks cover the two sides. Sure enough Sandinistas were hailed as heroes and the Contras were war criminals, the Sandinistas were the Communists.
It doesn't take American card-carrying members of our enemy's forces. We have plenty of "Americans" like the famous Professor Nicholas "I hope for a million Mogadishus" De Genova and his ideal world where "the U.S. would have no place." I am sure that the professor is not a jihadist.
The minnows grew up to be the Rat Party (formerly the traditional, patriotic Democratic Party) leaders and stalwarts. The old crew fled from the Party.
We now have the tools to fight the traitors with everything including blood; our America, their blood.
My preference however is to leave the actual combat up to the professionals. "Get on the damn horse, already!"