Posted on 07/06/2003 9:17:47 PM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
John G. Adams, a key figure in the proceedings that effectively ended Sen. Joseph McCarthy's career, passed quietly from the scene last week at age 91. Not surprisingly, his death made no news; it's been a while since those heady days when McCarthy launched his investigations of the Army, which had, he charged, been shielding countless Communist agents at Fort Monmouth and elsewhere. It fell to Adams, the Army's chief counsel, to deal with the charges, which he did to devastating effect in the Army-McCarthy hearings that held the nation in thrall in the 1950s.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
You weren't even born, when any of this was happening. All you have is books and/or transcripts, if you've even ever bothered to read about this time. Forget what, if anything you were taught about it in school; I doubt you got anything but propaganda.
Soooooooooooooo, Michael Moore states " facts " about guns and guns owners, does he ? Just like the " facts " which he's used in all his other ventures ? ARE YOU FOR REAL ?
McCarthy's " defense " of Nazis is NOT " well known "! Heck, it isn't know about at all, except by a piddling few.
McCarthy WAS wrongly demonized and NOT " by history " ! So, for that matter, was Richard Nixon ... by the Left and by actual Commies and fellow travelors. So was Chambers ! So was ans still, to this day, is Elia Kazan !
Grab a clue, newbie, you don't know much about this topic. You need to read " TREASON ", the Venona Papers, Weinstien's " PERJURY " and so much more, that it would be unreasonable for me to list.
Sure.
If she were writing a cookbook.
Most good authors are intimately familiar with the concepts of relevance and context.
If you provide the title of you latest book, I will check out your grasp of the subject.
Best regards.
Damn. I've been robbed!
Here I thought I bought a book about Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, and come to find out it's a biography!
I am shocked and dismayed.
I will search for a refresher on reading comprehension first thing in the morning.
That's a weak argument, If I was writing about how Robert Byrd was demonized for his efforts to expose an Iraqi spy or spies in the Bush Administration and fifties years later Robert Byrd was proven correct, what would his affiliation to the KKK have to do with the fact that the Bush Administration had been infiltrated by Iraqi spies and was warned about it?
If this rule applied, then we wouldn't have a subject called history. Regardless of how much you have studied the subject doesn't mean you understand it nor does it mean you won't flip-flop with more reading. The whole point of historical studies is that the facts can change depending upon who does the research and what linkages are found. Ann isn't going to rehab Joe overnight. These things take time and more research.
The problem with popular histories is that they invigorate the mind and leave out criticism and review. Let's see how it pans out as people (like Dorothy) put it to the test.
Where, on this thread, has anyone said such a thing ? NOWHERE; THAT'S WHERE !
I'll say it again, "TREASON " is NOT a bio, not even a mini bio of McCarthy. There has been NO " whitewashing " of him, from what I've seen. If someone were to write a book about the Gallic Wars and left out Gaius Julius Caesar's fling with Cleopatra, that would NOT be " whitewashing " Caesar . Get it now ?
Fine, don't, by any means, buy and read " TREASON ". Don't you dare! Remain ill informed.
As though lawyers know nothing about argumentation and investigation. Give it a rest. Rabinowitz doesn't know much about McCarthy and his sub-committee, and her comments in this article reveal her lack of objectivity here. It's short on factual rebuttal and long on polemic.
Rabinowitz is either being disingenuous or did not read the part about Annie Moss very carefully. It is not just that the other two names were slightly different....Annie Lee Moss had the same address that was given by the informant. This doesn't necessarily prove Moss's guilt, but it does show that she was not confused with another Annie Moss, as Rabinowitz would have you believe.
I haven't read the book, I admit, and, to be honest, I doubt I'll be able to get to it. Coulter's fevered style leaves me cold, and, from what I've read, she's at her most feverish in this book.
McCarthy, undeserving as he may be of the extreme villification he's gotten over the years, is far from a rehabilitatable character, as even so august a figure as William F. Buckley has been known to admit on occasion. He was a flawed man who properly recognized a security threat and then handled addressing that threat in a less than laudable manner. It's my view that his alcoholism, and the grandiosity that often goes along with alcoholism, played a central role in many of his excesses.
The historian Peter Viereck got it about right when said of the McCarthy era and the reactions to McCarthy from the left, "I am against hysteria, but I am also against hysteria about hysteria."
There it is folks -- all you need to know. I appreciate your honesty though.
Yea. Rabinowitz is Jewish. She just might not agree with people who defend Nazis.
Possibly so, but that has nothing to do with the substantive arguments Ann's book makes concerning the vicious assults on anti-anti-Communists and the importance of Venona. If what you imply is true, then I'd say Rabinowitz is definitely letting prejudices cloud her objectivity as a critic. Her piece is just as much a polemic as anything Coulter has ever written.
Ann Coulter is a polemicist, not a serious writer. Her intent is to whip her followers and the rabid right into a frenzy, which she seems to do, quite well, every time she writes or makes a television appearance, as is evidenced on this website. (Being a leggy blonde only helps her with the male contingent.)
Polemicists have an important function sometimes. The "serious writers" haven't been able to get anyone much interested in the Communist spy cover-up I lived through back in the 50s and onward, but Ann has. It's clear that a whole generation of people who've been uninformed or misinformed about that era now have access to information that's been actively suppressed by academia and the media. Many of them are eagerly investigating it. I see proof of that on many FR threads. The fact that certain people like Joe Conason and others are setting up an anti-Coulter blitz is very significant.
Whether Ann's "leggy blondeness" appeals to men or not is not relevant to anything. I'm rather turned off by her appearance and I'm a man. I assess the ideas in books, not the appearances of the writers.
The ONLY things that you have added to thsi thread are that you haven't read " TREASON ", won't read it, don't think much of Ann, think that she and Michael Moore are the same, amd a lot of vacuous statements.
Answer me this, were there or were there not Communists working inside the USA government ? Did McCarthy attempt to prove this ? Did he manage to expose some ? Was his name smeared for doing this ? Is this smear/slander valid ? If so, why ?
Dorothy's article is more like the writings of Maureen Dowd, than anything I've read, thus far, by Ann.
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.