Why the Government Cover-Up?

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Why would, did, the government of the United States allow, or encourage, a cover-up of the Communist conspiracy?
Why did it try to hide the facts, the evidence of infiltration, of Moscow's directing of US foreign policy?

And they did.
It was Democrats to a far greater extent...but it was, and is, both parties.





Let's examine this.

1. On the 'Merry Christmas' of December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned, declaring is office extinct, and the USSR dissolved. And...Soviet archives opened. In 1995, Haynes and Klehr published "The Secret World of American Communism" based on the archives. They showed that everything the anti-Communists had been saying, was true.

a. For decades, the Communist Party of America, the CPUSA, had been doing exactly what the "historians" had denied. And still do.
Haynes and Klehr, "In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage."

2. The CPUSA "cooperated with Soviet intelligence in espionage against the United States" and "was indeed a fifth column working inside and against the United States..."
Haynes and Klehr, "Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America," p.4, 7.

3. For over 40 years, since the end of WWII, or the 80 years, since FDR's 1933 recognition of the USSR, in exchange for promises that included agreeing not to wage clandestine war against the United States from within, Soviet subversion continued.





4. Here is the point: the US government knew the truth about the Communist conspiracy "having amassed its own evidence, a secret archive of irrefutable documentary confirmation of Soviet-orchestrated espionage.
The topsecret decryptions of intelligence cables from KGB agents in Washington and New York to superiors in Moscow between 1943 and 1948 would become known to the public as the Venona archives, but not until 1995-"
Diana West, "American Betryal," p. 74.
See. also: "Special Tasks," Anatoli Sudoplatov , Pavel Sudoplatov, Leona P. Schecter ,Jerrold L. Schecter


5. Intelligence historians Leona and Jerrold Schecter had evidence, reinvestigated and affirmed by the late Robert Novak, that Harry S. Truman was informed as early as 1950 that finding from the Venona project confirmed that Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, and former State Department official Alger Hiss as Soviet agents.

a. The Schecters also revealed, according to their source, that powerful Washington movers and shakers were also informed of Venona's findings....and that the group included Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post.
Jerrold and Leona Schechter, "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," p. 149, 156.

b. Whittaker Chambers called the Washington Post "the most implacable of the pro-Hiss newspapers," Chambers, "Witness," p. 710.

c. It should be noted that Haynes and Klehr deny that Graham was so notified.





6. And...since the government, our government, knew the truth...why did they encourage the vicious attacks, smears, slanders of the anti-Communists?? Why did they allow the debate over whether or not the Communist conspiracy existed....when all they had to do was declassify the files???

7. "It was no witch hunt that led American counterintelligence officials to investigate government employees and others with access to sensitive information for Communist ties....but a rational response to the extent to which the Communist Party had become an appendage of Soviet intelligence. And, as the documents in Vassiliev's notebooks make plain, they only knew the half of it."
Haynes, Kleher, Vassiliev, "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p. 548.

8. So....why the conspiracy of silence by those who should have spoken up, spoken out? Why did Truman, and then Eisenhower, do nothing about the Venona revelations?
Why didn't this government work to inform the nation, but, rather, sow dissension??



The implication is clear: for many critical years, American foreign policy was an instrument of Soviet strategy.

Seems only two possible answers as to why:

a. government officials couldn't admit that they had been fooled....

or

b. they were knowing participants in the conspiracy.
 
Rarely do I take much of PC's threads seriously but this one peaked my interest. I had never heard of the Venona project so I did a bit if reading. I suggest others do too, and in doing so consider the History of the Venona Project and the current situation with the NSA.

PS I do not agree with either of PC's conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Rarely do I take much of PC's threads seriously but this one peaked my interest. I had never heard of the Venona project so I did a bit if reading. I suggest others do too, and in doing so consider the History of the Venona Project and the current situation with the NSA.

PS I do not agree with either of PC's conclusions.




1. I consider the education of the uninformed my role.
Usually, concepts, and the implication of facts.

a. But sometimes, more there are more basic issues:
"Rarely do I take much of PC's threads seriously...."
Try "Rarely do I take PC's threads seriously..."
Better?



2. "...but this one peaked my interest."
I hope most do.

a. Agreement is less important.




3. " I had never heard of the Venona project..."
This is the major explanation for differences of opinion between Liberals and conservatives.
If those on your side knew as much as those on our side.....you'd be conservative, too.

Check this out:
"Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!
...and....

Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «


a. "...so I did a bit if reading."
There may be hope for you yet!

b. I hope that Haynes and Klehr become the focus of your research.





4. "PS I do not agree with either of PC's conclusions."
I await your suggestion for an alternative conclusion.
 

Forum List

Back
Top