A Conspiracy So Vast

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.

*** You can read all about McCarthy's downfall, and the alleged dupes and traitors responsible for it, in "Treason," a new book by Ann Coulter, the Maureen Dowd of the conservatives. It derides McCarthy's critics and brands the notion of McCarthyism itself as a myth and "the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times." She also thanks her publisher for his bravery -- a suggestion that it took courage to publish this work. Here we are, only up to the acknowledgments page, and already enjoying a laugh. True, at one point a book representing the Democrats as the party of treason, and Sen. McCarthy as one of the greatest heroes of the age, might have given some publishers pause. Not today -- the era that has put its money on outrage merchants and shock jocks.

Imagine the delight Ms. Coulter's publishers (Crown Forum, a division of Random House) felt as they contemplated the possibilities. "Treason" had everything -- attacks and dark revelations about eminences hitherto untouchable, such as CBS's Edward R. Murrow, author of the famous "See It Now" broadcast that struck the first blow against McCarthy, from which the senator would never recover. "On what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he is grown so great?" Murrow asked, in that searing indictment, delivered to a huge national audience, charging McCarthy with the reckless destruction of lives and reputations. It was, Ms. Coulter claims, a vicious and deceptive hatchet piece, "produced by Edward R. Murrow, friend of Soviet spy Laurence Duggan."

Pure gold. Could a publisher ask for more? But more there is: Ms. Coulter has not just set about rehabilitating McCarthy as a martyr destroyed by anti-American leftists -- she has also set about rehabilitating the most notorious of his cases, the kind dramatized in famous film clips of the period. Cases like that of Annie Lee Moss, a black code clerk who had lost her job at the Pentagon when she was hauled before McCarthy's committee as a security risk and Communist Party member. She had been confused with a different Annie Lee Moss, the witness explained -- and who Karl Marx was she could not even say. So evident was Ms. Moss's confusion at what she was doing there that applause erupted in the hearing room when Democratic Sen. Stuart Symington declared he believed her.

But the evidence against Ms. Moss was not insignificant, the author of "Treason" now maintains. The code clerk had said there were two other people called Annie Lee Moss listed in the Washington phone book -- whereas the two others were actually Anna Lee Moss and Annie Moss. Dynamite evidence, as far as Ms. Coulter is concerned -- case closed. After all, an FBI report had identified her as a Communist.

Also up for refurbishing is another famous McCarthy case, that against Army Capt. Irving Peress, a dentist reported to be a member of the Communist Party -- to become famous mainly for McCarthy's insistence on learning who promoted the captain to major. "Who Promoted Peress?" became his battle cry for a year. Even after the Rosenbergs had been caught, Ms. Coulter now charges, the Army had promoted the dentist reported to be a Communist. "When were they going to learn?"

Yes, a book with everything -- and we don't forget the classy prose. "Needless to say, the scrawny pinko was also a failure as a soldier," writes Ms. Coulter, about Peress.

And the book with everything has been getting precisely the kind of media attention the publishers counted on -- anywhere one turned on the TV screens last week there was the author of "Treason" happily confronting wide-eyed interviewers wanting to know how she can say the things she says -- her manner inviting them and the public to see just how bad she can be. Wait, you think that was something, her tone seems to say -- there's worse to come.

There always is, in the book, which ranges from the martyrdom of Sen. McCarthy -- without whose great fortitude and perspicacity in exposing the Communist menace, we might, Ms. Coulter suggests, all now be in the gulag -- to such matters as the Hollywood blacklist and the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings, which in fact had little to do with McCarthy. Here Ms. Coulter pauses to reflect on the whining of those on the blacklist, all of whom she mocks as prosperous exiles racing happily around Europe with rich friends and having a good time. In Ms. Coulter's version of this history, of course, the blacklisted are only the rich and resourceful -- a history that doesn't include the countless people destroyed because their names had popped up on some list of alleged Communists or fellow travelers, or sounded like a name on one of those lists. People like the actor Phillip Loeb, for example, unemployable and ultimately driven to suicide because he could no longer pay the bills for the care of a mentally ill son.

The portrayal of Sen. McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is "sheer liberal hobgoblinism," Ms. Coulter maintains. It is true enough that there was nothing particularly wild-eyed about McCarthy, though that eerie giggle of his which tended to erupt at odd moments did have a certain out-of-this world pitch. Matters like that aside, the senator knew what he was about -- knew how much gold, political and other, a crusading Communist hunter could mine -- particularly one who could wave lists of names, numbers of traitors and plotters against the nation. The times were ripe for his kind.

Whether Sen. McCarthy actually believed some of the more fantastic charges he made -- charges that brought him instant fame -- remains a question. In 1951 he declared that Secretaries of State George Marshall and Dean Acheson had conspired to deliver China to the Soviets; and, not least, that they and other American leaders had taken part in a conspiracy against the United States, "a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man."

In another time -- our own -- he might have found a calling as a political shock jock. It was his fate, instead, for his name to be forever associated with a reign of fear and terror all too real. In her devoted effort to redraw Sen. McCarthy's history, Ms. Coulter makes the point that the members of the elite establishment all despised McCarthy. So did most educators, intellectuals and university faculties. That last is always worth remembering, though not for the reasons Ms. Coulter thinks. It is worth remembering that during that bleak political time the universities, faculties and students understood the threat McCarthyism posed to intellectual freedom -- and, dismal to note today, that the universities which were once hotbeds of opposition to McCarthy are now little worlds of their own, where political censorship, speech codes and other ideologically driven assaults on freedom are the accepted order of things.

*** Ms. Coulter's work includes an admiring if brief biography of McCarthy's political career. One that for some reason excludes the senator's remarkable efforts on behalf of the members of the SS battle group who executed 86 American POWs in the Ardennes campaign in December 1944; otherwise known as the Malmedy Massacre. In his impassioned efforts on behalf of the accused -- one never to be repeated in his investigative career -- the senator charged that the U.S. Army had cruelly mistreated the former SS men.

All things considered, Sen. McCarthy's reputation would be hard to refurbish, but give Ms. Coulter credit for an all-out effort. The senator -- who knew something about the art of outrage merchandising -- would have understood the latest of his public advocates.

Are you saying that anyone who chooses to defend Ann Coulter, who provides extensive footnotes to all her statements of fact, somehow loses the right to point out dishonesty in others? Care to back that up with something other than an ad hominem?

I think you understood me, although I dont think you lose the right to point out dishonesty in others. I just wish you would not be so quick to accuse others of it when Ann would lie through her teeth to make a point if she could. See takes an extreme position for shock value. She should have have been a schock jock.

Do I care to take ten hours of my time trying to prove it to you or anyone else who worships at Ann's croch, no. It would be a waste of my time. Anyone who purrs over every word from Ann is not open to discussion, just attack.

Native born NAZI's have never been thrown out. Only those who immigrated to the US and lied on their visa and citizenship applications have been expelled. Communists never have been expelled.

Did a google search on this.

COURT ORDERS AMERICAN-BORN NAZI DEPORTED The US has a long history of deporting Nazis, most of who were born in Europe and immigrated to the US after World War Two. Recently, however, a federal appeals court ordered someone who was born a U.S. citizen deported for Nazi activities. Go to www.visalaw.com for the full article.

I think all with primary allegiance to another country should be kicked out. No special treatment for Communists.

Thanks for correction. Not in favor of Nazi's just didnt think they didnt expel any that didnt spend time in Germany during the war. After all Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg were strong supporters of Hitler prior to the war.

I guess by clearcase-guy's standards, I am now a liar.

Either the writer only skimmed her book or is being deliberately deceptive. True, there were two other Anna or Annie Mosses in Washington. But -- it is also true that the code clerk (a) lived at the actual address in the FBI report while neither of the other two did, and (b) she received a Communist newspaper and had been receiving it for so long that every time she moved the subscription was changed to her new address.

Hmm...interesting additional pieces of evidence that this writer decided to drop, huh?

please provide link to "about" www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk so that we can evaluate this website for accuracy, ie, who are the people, organizations, authors that support, manage, fund and do the research for this website, be sure there are names and bios at this link supporting their qualifications...rto

please provide link to "about" www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk so that we can evaluate this website for accuracy, ie, who are the people, organizations, authors that support, manage, fund and do the research for this website, be sure there are names and bios at this link supporting their qualifications...rto

Who put you in charge?

Earlier, I called you a dishonest person because you kept saying that Senator McCarthy was gay. You posted no information to back that up. Another poster pointed out that McCarthy was not a life-long bachelor, but did get married. You "corrected" yourself by pointing to a link that (seemed to me) to be full of innuedo implying that his marriage was one of convenience, intended to avoid questions about his exuality. I have seen no real evidence to support this -- merely unsubstantiated innuedo.

You have pointed several times to your "correction" implying that you are not a dishonest person, and that when your errors are pointed out to you, you take steps to correct the record (as any honest person would). But now this:

However, there is plenty of evidence that McCarthy led an "alternate lifestyle"

So, what happened to your correction? Do you have any evidence? Aside from the fact that Roy Cohn worked for him? McCarthy went by far more than guilt by association -- but you seem to have nothing but.

Since you continually imply that the Senator was gay, even though he married a woman, it is incumbent upon you to provide some evidence for this slander. Unless you don't care much about the truth.

Johnson's Silver Star is a joke.

MacArthur's awarded him the Army Silver Star Medal by General Douglas MacArthur and cited as follows:

"For gallantry in action in the vicinity of Port Moresby and Salamaua, New Guinea, on June 9, 1942. While on a mission of obtaining information in the Southwest Pacific area, Lieutenant Commander Johnson, in order to obtain personal knowledge of combat conditions, volunteered as an observer on a hazardous aerial combat mission over hostile positions in New Guinea. As our planes neared the target area they were intercepted by eight hostile fighters. When, at this time, the plane in which Lieutenant Commander Johnson was an observer, developed mechanical trouble and was forced to turn back alone, presenting a favorable target to the enemy fighters, he evidenced marked coolness in spite of the hazards involved. His gallant actions enabled him to obtain and return with valuable information."

So as soon as they spot enemy fighters, they fabricate a mechanical problem and turn back to protect the young congressman's hide. And thankful that he doesn't freak out, they award him a medal.

MacArthur certainly knew what side his bread was buttered on.

1st, when flying heavier aircraft, you don't "develop mechanical problems" to leave your group. That just makes you a target. Think wolves and sick gazelle.

2nd, McCarthy was a tail gunner. He had squat to do with the piloting of the aircraft. He had no input into the command decision process.

Your lack of knowledge on military procedure and tactics has not precluded your "slam" on a subject on which you lack accurate perspective.

btw, here's the link to the WSJ op-ed that you failed to post for some reason...rto

I didnt post it because The Wall Street Journal is a by subscription only publication. It's something like $75 a year. If you havent subscribed and dont have the appropriate cookie on your machine, you are not going to access it... unless they ALSO placed it on their free portion where John Fund and a few others have their editorials posted. But the section where I found it was on the subscription section. Why post a url if Im going to get a ton of folks complaining that it doesnt work?

Since you continually imply that the Senator was gay, even though he married a woman, it is incumbent upon you to provide some evidence for this slander. Unless you don't care much about the truth.

How about you hold all the idiots that claim Clinton murdered seventy or so people during his reign in Arkansas and as President to the same standard?

btw, here's the link to the WSJ op-ed that you failed to post for some reason...rto

In addition to the fact that I found op-ed on the Wall Street Journal Editorial page (subscription only) I posted the entire editorial. There was therefore no reason to give the url unless you are suggesting that I would fabricate the entire piece. Have you done your word for word comparison yet?

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.