Posted on 06/25/2003 4:22:49 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
I DARE CALL IT TREASON
BY ANN COULTER
The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis. As Whittaker Chambers said: "[I]nnocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does."
At the time, half the country realized liberals were lying. But after a half century of liberal myth-making, even the disgorging of Soviet and American archives half a century later could not overcome their lies. In 1995, the U.S. government released its cache of Soviet cables that had been decoded during the Cold War in a top-secret undertaking known as the Venona Project. The cables proved the overwhelming truth of McCarthy's charges. Naturally, therefore, the release of decrypted Soviet cables was barely mentioned by the New York Times. It might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of "McCarthyism." They were not so innocent after all, it turns out.
Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imaginations. McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. He was tilting at an authentic communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the Democratic Party. The Democrats had unpardonably connived with the greatest evil of the 20th century. This could not be nullified. But liberals could at least hope to redeem the Democratic Party by dedicating themselves to rewriting history and blackening reputations. This is what liberals had done repeatedly throughout the Cold War. At every strategic moment this century, liberals would wage a campaign of horrendous lies and disinformation simply to dull the discovery the American people had made. They had gotten good at it.
There were, admittedly, a few rare and striking exceptions to the left's overall obtuseness to communist totalitarianism. John F. Kennedy's pronouncements on communism could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy. For all his flaws, Truman unquestionably loved his country. He was a completely different breed from today's Democrats. Through the years, there were various epiphanic moments creating yet more anti-communist Democrats. The Stalin-Hitler pact, Alger Hiss' prothonotary warbler, information about the purges and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" – all these had their effect.
But after World War II, the Democratic Party suffered a form of what France had succumbed to after World War I. The entire party had lost is nerve for sacrifice, heroism and bravery. Beginning in the '50s, there was a real battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. By the late '60s, the battle was over. The anti-communist Democrats had lost.
In 1972, George McGovern, darling of left-wing radicals, was the Democratic presidential candidate. Tom Hayden, leader of Students for a Democratic Society and an instigator of the Chicago riots, became a Democratic state senator in California. (In 1968, Staughton Lynd wrote of Tom Hayden: "On Monday, Wednesday and Friday he was a National Liberation Front guerilla, and on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, he ... was on the left wing of the Democratic Party.") Black Panther Bobby Rush would go on to become a Democratic congressman. Todd Gitlin, a former president of SDS, would soon be a frequent op-ed columnist for the New York Times. By the time of the 1991 Gulf War, only 10 Senate Democrats voted with the President Bush to use troops against Saddam Hussein. If the old Democratic Party was merely obtuse, the new Democratic Party was a beachhead of domestic anti-Americanism. This was the new Democratic Party.
Clinton was the left's last best hope for proving they could too handle the presidency. Having tricked the American people into entrusting a Democrat with the White House (on a plurality vote), they had to defend him from any lie, any felony, any reprehensible, contemptible conduct he threw their way. When Clinton first showed his fat oleaginous mug to the nation, the Republicans screamed he was a draft-dodging, pot-smoking flim-flam artist. Had the Republicans turned out to be right again, it would have sounded the death knell for the Democratic Party.
So the Democrats lied. Through their infernal politics of personal destruction, liberals stayed in the game for a few more years.
Unless we fight for proper treatment of history and counter the nonsense images of McCarthy, no history can be safe from the liberal noise machine. Someday, school children will be taught that all of America cringed with terror at Ken Starr, whose evil designs on the nation were frustrated only through the sacrifice of brave liberals. People will have vivid images of the pounding boots of Starr's subpoena-servers and the Gestapo-like wails of alarms as Ken Starr arrived to kick in the doors of innocent Americans and storm through their bedrooms. It will be the Reign of Terror under Ken Starr.
Bill Clinton will be revered in high school history books as the George Washington of his day who, along with patriots Larry Flynt and James Carville, "saved the Constitution." He will be honored with a memorial larger than the Washington Monument (though probably with the same general design).
People will believe that. And liberals will continue unabashedly invoking a lie in order to shield their ongoing traitorous behavior.
I'm really amazed at you guys and how you divert with differences that don't matter. Yes, the report wasn't all about Monica, but it was all about sex. Not a whiff about treason, and selling missile technology to China in exchange for campaign donations from Loral. Not a whiff.
And don't you think that's a shame? Don't you think there's something fishy about that? Don't you think that was flat out wrong?
Let's not split hairs. Starr had an opportunity to run Clinton out of town with bona fide treason charges, and instead he took the Just About Sex route, like he was getting instructions from James Carville on how to throw the fight.
Now we've gone from splitting hairs to false dichotomies. No, I didn't say, "Let's ignore the sex." I said, "Let's not ignore the treason."
Now, does anyone else have any more arcane justifications for why Ken Starr didn't mention treason in his book?
He didn't investigate it is the reason I guess. Eric Holder and Reno were very careful about where they let Starr look around. "Career civil servants at the DOJ" were handling the China charges. They ended up pleading everyone out.
It gets worse, grasshopper. I am sure you have seen the untouchable archives. Those voluminous and extensive caves of data which have titles as juicy and sweet as the best fruit on the vine but which have not been put on the internet.
OTOH, the movie starts and writers, called before HUAC, were mostly guilty of far more than a youthful fling with Communism.
Lucille Ball was a natural blonde ...I thought everyone knew that. LOL
As I understood it Starr was an empolyee working under the direction of Janet Reno who was investigating the white water when he stumbled into some sex related perjury by accident--which Reno's justice department gave him the thumbs up to pursue. It seems like he would have needed Reno's approval to look into the more serious stuff.
Am I supposed to be surprised that Joe Kennedy, a scumbag extaordinaire, was an avid supporter of McCarthy?
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.