Sen Joe McCarthy: American Patriot and Hero

[Wry Catcher]

You're parroting crap from a 60 year old playbook that has been completely discredited, even your Soviet friends admit they had a robust spy program at US State and that Alder, Currie, Service and many others were genuine Communist spies.

Stay ignorant, on you it looks good

You know I consider you an idiot. I suspect many vistors to this MB agree with me. Simply because others patronize you, doesn't make anything you post sensible.
McCarthy was a liar, a drunk and totally discredited by his contemporaries.
I am an agnostic, but I still have hope that there is a heaven and hell (it sucks being raised catholic and having a brain) and both you and McCarthy enjoy eternity in hell.

How much of a drunk, was he drunk all the time, falling down, slobbering drunk, or was it an occasional drink, I know what Goldwater wrote about McCarthy's drinking, sounds to me that its a bit exagerrated simply to state McCarthy was a drunk.

Fact of the matter is there is no way a drunk can get elected, of course I have asked to define being a drunk, because that matters.

Communist were active in our government, to state otherwise is wrong. Could anyone of addressed the issue in a calm and civil manner, during the times of racism and the civil rights movement, is there any other way to address the issue of Communism without be loud and forceful and pissing off a lot of people.

Anyhow, history shows the Communist penetration was deep.

Oppenhiemer is a great example of what Mccarthy was fighting.

It amazes me how ignorant the RW hoi polloi are.

 

[mdn2000]

You know I consider you an idiot. I suspect many vistors to this MB agree with me. Simply because others patronize you, doesn't make anything you post sensible.
McCarthy was a liar, a drunk and totally discredited by his contemporaries.
I am an agnostic, but I still have hope that there is a heaven and hell (it sucks being raised catholic and having a brain) and both you and McCarthy enjoy eternity in hell.

How much of a drunk, was he drunk all the time, falling down, slobbering drunk, or was it an occasional drink, I know what Goldwater wrote about McCarthy's drinking, sounds to me that its a bit exagerrated simply to state McCarthy was a drunk.

Fact of the matter is there is no way a drunk can get elected, of course I have asked to define being a drunk, because that matters.

Communist were active in our government, to state otherwise is wrong. Could anyone of addressed the issue in a calm and civil manner, during the times of racism and the civil rights movement, is there any other way to address the issue of Communism without be loud and forceful and pissing off a lot of people.

Anyhow, history shows the Communist penetration was deep.

Oppenhiemer is a great example of what Mccarthy was fighting.

It amazes me how ignorant the RW hoi polloi are.

Are you unaware of Oppenhiemer, Mccarthy was aware of Oppenhiemer, lots of high level people were aware of Oppenhiemer, of course Oppenhiemer was not part of the Mccarthy story but it is part of the times that Mccarthy was a politician thus like all the politicians of the time they knew about Oppenhiemer, I forget the year of Oppenhiemer's trial, I think three years before Mccarthy began his work.

So are you aware of Oppenhiemer's known associations with Communists. As much as Oppenhiemer associated with Communists I cannot see how Oppehiemer was allowed on the Manhatten project.

So how can we associate all the Mccarthy did with being drunk and ignore Oppenhiemer, Oppenhiemer came before Mccarthy, the prosecution of Oppenhiemer did not involve anything Mccarthy did, an impossibility as Oppenhiemer is one example of Communism long before Mccarthy came along.

So are you ignorant of Oppenhiemer thus your only option is to call me ignorant.

The case is now shut and closed, Oppenhiemer vindicates Mccarthy. Oppenhiemer willingly associated with real life card carrying members of the Communist party.

Not one person is willing or able to address Oppenhiemer, everyone has either ignored this fact of history or your simply ignorant of history.

Case closed, Oppenhiemer, some people always wondered why Stalin seemed to know about the Atomic bomb at Potsdam, Oppenhiemer was privy to the secrets and had daily, extended contacts with card carrying members of the Communist party.

Communism was alive and well, working to be a part of the government, its simple fact, easily proven, over and over, from KGB files to public records. The proof is everywhere.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How much of a drunk, was he drunk all the time, falling down, slobbering drunk, or was it an occasional drink, I know what Goldwater wrote about McCarthy's drinking, sounds to me that its a bit exagerrated simply to state McCarthy was a drunk.

Fact of the matter is there is no way a drunk can get elected, of course I have asked to define being a drunk, because that matters.

Communist were active in our government, to state otherwise is wrong. Could anyone of addressed the issue in a calm and civil manner, during the times of racism and the civil rights movement, is there any other way to address the issue of Communism without be loud and forceful and pissing off a lot of people.

Anyhow, history shows the Communist penetration was deep.

Oppenhiemer is a great example of what Mccarthy was fighting.

It amazes me how ignorant the RW hoi polloi are.

Are you unaware of Oppenhiemer, Mccarthy was aware of Oppenhiemer, lots of high level people were aware of Oppenhiemer, of course Oppenhiemer was not part of the Mccarthy story but it is part of the times that Mccarthy was a politician thus like all the politicians of the time they knew about Oppenhiemer, I forget the year of Oppenhiemer's trial, I think three years before Mccarthy began his work.

So are you aware of Oppenhiemer's known associations with Communists. As much as Oppenhiemer associated with Communists I cannot see how Oppehiemer was allowed on the Manhatten project.

So how can we associate all the Mccarthy did with being drunk and ignore Oppenhiemer, Oppenhiemer came before Mccarthy, the prosecution of Oppenhiemer did not involve anything Mccarthy did, an impossibility as Oppenhiemer is one example of Communism long before Mccarthy came along.

So are you ignorant of Oppenhiemer thus your only option is to call me ignorant.

The case is now shut and closed, Oppenhiemer vindicates Mccarthy. Oppenhiemer willingly associated with real life card carrying members of the Communist party.

Not one person is willing or able to address Oppenhiemer, everyone has either ignored this fact of history or your simply ignorant of history.

Case closed, Oppenhiemer, some people always wondered why Stalin seemed to know about the Atomic bomb at Potsdam, Oppenhiemer was privy to the secrets and had daily, extended contacts with card carrying members of the Communist party.

Communism was alive and well, working to be a part of the government, its simple fact, easily proven, over and over, from KGB files to public records. The proof is everywhere.

Read slowly moron, maybe you'll get it. The end doesn't justify the means (notwithstanding your paranoid delusions)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not one of JM's apologists here will touch that it was his own party that pulled him down and had him censured.

 

[mdn2000]

It amazes me how ignorant the RW hoi polloi are.

Are you unaware of Oppenhiemer, Mccarthy was aware of Oppenhiemer, lots of high level people were aware of Oppenhiemer, of course Oppenhiemer was not part of the Mccarthy story but it is part of the times that Mccarthy was a politician thus like all the politicians of the time they knew about Oppenhiemer, I forget the year of Oppenhiemer's trial, I think three years before Mccarthy began his work.

So are you aware of Oppenhiemer's known associations with Communists. As much as Oppenhiemer associated with Communists I cannot see how Oppehiemer was allowed on the Manhatten project.

So how can we associate all the Mccarthy did with being drunk and ignore Oppenhiemer, Oppenhiemer came before Mccarthy, the prosecution of Oppenhiemer did not involve anything Mccarthy did, an impossibility as Oppenhiemer is one example of Communism long before Mccarthy came along.

So are you ignorant of Oppenhiemer thus your only option is to call me ignorant.

The case is now shut and closed, Oppenhiemer vindicates Mccarthy. Oppenhiemer willingly associated with real life card carrying members of the Communist party.

Not one person is willing or able to address Oppenhiemer, everyone has either ignored this fact of history or your simply ignorant of history.

Case closed, Oppenhiemer, some people always wondered why Stalin seemed to know about the Atomic bomb at Potsdam, Oppenhiemer was privy to the secrets and had daily, extended contacts with card carrying members of the Communist party.

Communism was alive and well, working to be a part of the government, its simple fact, easily proven, over and over, from KGB files to public records. The proof is everywhere.

Read slowly moron, maybe you'll get it. The end doesn't justify the means (notwithstanding your paranoid delusions)

Me being a moron has nothing to do with points being made. The end does not justify the means, depends on what you speak of. Are you now stating that McCarthy was right and it was the way he handled it that was wrong or is this just your attempt to deflect from a fact I posted that vindicates Mccarthy.

It appears your the one who is ignornant, I presented a fact that is irrefutable, one of hundreds of facts concerning Communist activity in foreign countries.

Sorry if you have based your information on the writings of Zinn and Chomsky, Zinn and Chomsky did not do thier homework.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake and Gadawg are funny because they think that they are both debater and referee. We post and link to sources while they go, "Yeah? Nyah nyah nyah!" and then declare themselves the winner.

They bring up Gen Snow, when Snow was clearly the Jake Starkey of his time.

Gen Snow would say, "McCarthy is a liar! State Dept is free of Communist influence!" Then when asked to show proof, Gen Snow, like Jake threatening to quote footnotes to a book he still did not read, made a total fool of himself before Congress.

Blacklisted by history: the untold ... - Google Books

Pages 294-295

 

[mdn2000]

Jake and Gadawg are funny because they think that they are both debater and referee. We post and link to sources while they go, "Yeah? Nyah nyah nyah!" and then declare themselves the winner.

They bring up Gen Snow, when Snow was clearly the Jake Starkey of his time.

Gen Snow would say, "McCarthy is a liar! State Dept is free of Communist influence!" Then when asked to show proof, Gen Snow, like Jake threatening to quote footnotes to a book he still did not read, made a total fool of himself before Congress.

Blacklisted by history: the untold ... - Google Books

Pages 294-295

I find Jakes posts to be of more substance than a dumb country boy's.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you unaware of Oppenhiemer, Mccarthy was aware of Oppenhiemer, lots of high level people were aware of Oppenhiemer, of course Oppenhiemer was not part of the Mccarthy story but it is part of the times that Mccarthy was a politician thus like all the politicians of the time they knew about Oppenhiemer, I forget the year of Oppenhiemer's trial, I think three years before Mccarthy began his work.

So are you aware of Oppenhiemer's known associations with Communists. As much as Oppenhiemer associated with Communists I cannot see how Oppehiemer was allowed on the Manhatten project.

So how can we associate all the Mccarthy did with being drunk and ignore Oppenhiemer, Oppenhiemer came before Mccarthy, the prosecution of Oppenhiemer did not involve anything Mccarthy did, an impossibility as Oppenhiemer is one example of Communism long before Mccarthy came along.

So are you ignorant of Oppenhiemer thus your only option is to call me ignorant.

The case is now shut and closed, Oppenhiemer vindicates Mccarthy. Oppenhiemer willingly associated with real life card carrying members of the Communist party.

Not one person is willing or able to address Oppenhiemer, everyone has either ignored this fact of history or your simply ignorant of history.

Case closed, Oppenhiemer, some people always wondered why Stalin seemed to know about the Atomic bomb at Potsdam, Oppenhiemer was privy to the secrets and had daily, extended contacts with card carrying members of the Communist party.

Communism was alive and well, working to be a part of the government, its simple fact, easily proven, over and over, from KGB files to public records. The proof is everywhere.

Read slowly moron, maybe you'll get it. The end doesn't justify the means (notwithstanding your paranoid delusions)

Me being a moron has nothing to do with points being made. The end does not justify the means, depends on what you speak of. Are you now stating that McCarthy was right and it was the way he handled it that was wrong or is this just your attempt to deflect from a fact I posted that vindicates Mccarthy.

It appears your the one who is ignornant, I presented a fact that is irrefutable, one of hundreds of facts concerning Communist activity in foreign countries.

Sorry if you have based your information on the writings of Zinn and Chomsky, Zinn and Chomsky did not do thier homework.

The fact is you're not a moron, you're simply not very bright. Consider, it was McCarthy who defined the 'end'; I have no way of knowing what his ultimate goal was. Did he want to be president? Did he want attention? Was his brain so addeled by alcohol he believed destroying peoples lives, making allegation where no objective data was offered or even available was in the best interest of the nation?

The means were evil; the end he sought is irrelevant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like McCarthy, I look at Communist infiltration of US State as one the single worst turning points in US history, Progressives see it as a cause for celebration

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Read slowly moron, maybe you'll get it. The end doesn't justify the means (notwithstanding your paranoid delusions)

Me being a moron has nothing to do with points being made. The end does not justify the means, depends on what you speak of. Are you now stating that McCarthy was right and it was the way he handled it that was wrong or is this just your attempt to deflect from a fact I posted that vindicates Mccarthy.

It appears your the one who is ignornant, I presented a fact that is irrefutable, one of hundreds of facts concerning Communist activity in foreign countries.

Sorry if you have based your information on the writings of Zinn and Chomsky, Zinn and Chomsky did not do thier homework.

The fact is you're not a moron, you're simply not very bright. Consider, it was McCarthy who defined the 'end'; I have no way of knowing what his ultimate goal was. Did he want to be president? Did he want attention? Was his brain so addeled by alcohol he believed destroying peoples lives, making allegation where no objective data was offered or even available was in the best interest of the nation?

The means were evil; the end he sought is irrelevant.

Wow! You don't know ANYTHING about McCarthy, almost 1,000 unread posts in and you come up with a sparkler like that!

You got your Brand of Stupid Custom Fitted this Morning! Like i said, on you it looks good

 

[Gadawg73]

You're parroting crap from a 60 year old playbook that has been completely discredited, even your Soviet friends admit they had a robust spy program at US State and that Alder, Currie, Service and many others were genuine Communist spies.

Stay ignorant, on you it looks good

You know I consider you an idiot. I suspect many vistors to this MB agree with me. Simply because others patronize you, doesn't make anything you post sensible.
McCarthy was a liar, a drunk and totally discredited by his contemporaries.
I am an agnostic, but I still have hope that there is a heaven and hell (it sucks being raised catholic and having a brain) and both you and McCarthy enjoy eternity in hell.

How much of a drunk, was he drunk all the time, falling down, slobbering drunk, or was it an occasional drink, I know what Goldwater wrote about McCarthy's drinking, sounds to me that its a bit exagerrated simply to state McCarthy was a drunk.

Fact of the matter is there is no way a drunk can get elected, of course I have asked to define being a drunk, because that matters.

Communist were active in our government, to state otherwise is wrong. Could anyone of addressed the issue in a calm and civil manner, during the times of racism and the civil rights movement, is there any other way to address the issue of Communism without be loud and forceful and pissing off a lot of people.

Anyhow, history shows the Communist penetration was deep.

Oppenhiemer is a great example of what Mccarthy was fighting.

The atomic bomb was dropped in 1945.
Saved 1million American casualties including possibly my father who was on Saipan training for the invasion as a Marine Captain in 1945 2nd Marines.
Name ONE thing that Oppenheimer did as a communist that inhibited the Manhattan Project, the development of the atomic bomb and the delivery of the atomic bomb.
One thing. Name it. How was he anti American in ANY WAY.

 

[editec]

I put right wing fruitcakes trying to revise McCathey as some kind of American hero in the same class of ideological idiots as those left wing chumps who are still trying to tell us that STALIN was a good, but misunderstood man.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Like McCarthy, I look at Communist infiltration of US State as one the single worst turning points in US history, Progressives see it as a cause for celebration

So says the Moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake and Gadawg are funny because they think that they are both debater and referee. We post and link to sources while they go, "Yeah? Nyah nyah nyah!" and then declare themselves the winner.

They bring up Gen Snow, when Snow was clearly the Jake Starkey of his time.

Gen Snow would say, "McCarthy is a liar! State Dept is free of Communist influence!" Then when asked to show proof, Gen Snow, like Jake threatening to quote footnotes to a book he still did not read, made a total fool of himself before Congress.

Blacklisted by history: the untold ... - Google Books

Pages 294-295

I find Jakes posts to be of more substance than a dumb country boy's.

The far right's evidence has been discounted time and time again, and the far right here won't evaluate the counter evidence, so all they can do now is attack personality

When the far right begins strawman argumentation, they admit they have lost the discussion.

Guys, why won't you answer though I have posted this at least ten times, "Why was it JM's own party members who pulled him down?"

 

[Mark LaRochelle]

Excellent post. Where can the original source be found?

Truman Library. Original transcripts from the interview. McKinzie also wrote a book on it.

Thank you, gadawg, for identifying your source. You're a scholar and a gentleman. (By the way, what's the name of the McKinzie book?) I originally suspected that this was your source, but I had discarded that hypothesis because your quote of Gen. Snow is slightly different from what Snow actually says in the transcript, posted at

Truman Library - Conrad E. Snow Oral History Interview

You quote Snow as saying

"I accused McCarthy of making false statements about matters he knew were false"

What Snow actually says in the transcript is "I accused Senator McCarthy of making false statements about matters, that he must have known were false" (p. 30) and "I told Senator McCarthy to his face at that hearing that he was making statements that were untrue and he knew they were untrue." (p. 31)

I remember discussing this interview with Evans while he was writing Blacklisted by History. I thought I knew a lot about McCarthy from reading Oshinsky, Rovere, Reeves, etc., and I was always looking for something to trip Evans up. I brandished this interview and told him it seemed pretty damning for McCarthy. As usual, Evans directed me to the primary source, the hearing transcripts. What I found there shattered some of my fondest illusions.

In his congressional testimony, Snow, then chairman of the State Department Loyalty-Security Board, accused McCarthy of lying. Sen. Homer Ferguson (R-MI) said, "[W]e are going to ask for the proof that these statements by Senator McCarthy were false....” Asked for examples of lies he alleged McCarthy had told. Snow responded: "the accusation is that the State Department had 205, or whatever number he chose to call it, known Communists.... He made the same statement over and over again."

Snow made three false statements here: the number of suspects, the allegations against them, and their locations.

In place of “helping to shape our foreign policy,” Snow said “the State Department”; in place of “57,” he said “205, or whatever number he chose to call it” (he made the “205” allegation more explicit in the McKinzie interview: “In February, 1950, Senator Joseph M. McCarthy stated publicly that there were 205 known Communists in the State Department.” [p. 50]); and in place of “individuals who would appear to be either card carrying Communists or certainly loyal to the Communist Party,” he said “known Communists.”

Regarding the number of suspects: The charge that McCarthy had said “205” (rather than “57,” as he claimed) in Wheeling was first made by Sen. William Benton (D-CT), as the very first charge in a bill he wrote to eject McCarthy from the Senate. The Senate (then under control of the Democratic Party) sent staff investigators to Wheeling to try to substantiate Benton's charges. The investigation concluded that what McCarthy actually said was "I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy” -- exactly what McCarthy claimed he had said. According to one investigator: “The newly unearthed evidence demolished Senator Benton’s charges in all their material respects and thoroughly proved Senator McCarthy’s account of the facts to be truthful.” The investigative memo on all this was quietly buried, but the charge that McCarthy had said “205” was likewise dropped. Thus the Congressional Record to this day records that McCarthy said "57," not "205."

Confronted with these facts, Snow pleaded ignorance. McCarthy asked, "Mr. Snow, are you aware of the fact that the investigators for the Gillette-Monroney Committee went to Wheeling, W.Va., and completely disproved what you have said?" Snow replied: "I am not aware of that." McCarthy asked, "Did you not read that in the paper?" Snow answered "No, sir." McCarthy asked, "Did you not think that before going out and making that statement, that you should check on matters like that?"

Even Benton didn't deny that McCarthy had said “individuals who would appear to be either card carrying Communists or certainly loyal to the Communist Party,” rather than “known Communists.” As I mentioned:

Fellow-travelers who were not CP members but were “loyal to the Communist Party” were explicitly targeted by the Truman Loyalty Order (“Membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, Fascist, Communist

Benton likewise never denied that McCarthy had said “helping to shape our foreign policy” (not “in the State Department&#8221. Not all McCarthy's suspects were in the State Department; some were at Treasury, Commerce, the UN, etc. (Likewise, even Benton never claimed that McCarthy used the number 205 “over and over again”; his allegation was that McCarthy had used this number only once, in the Wheeling speech, thereafter switching to 57.)

Snow's next example of an alleged lie was McCarthy's statement that the State Department's personnel files had been tampered with. Snow knew this charge was false, he testified, because the files had been in his possession since June 9, 1947. But McCarthy's statement had referred to depositions from four current and former State Department employees, stating that they had been ordered to remove material from these files in 1946.

Regarding these depositions, Snow again pleaded ignorance. McCarthy asked Snow, "Are you aware of the fact that the statements cover a period of time before June 9, 1947?" Snow replied: "No, sir." Snow then made an astonishing admission: "I was so confident that the files had never been rifled that I had no presentiment of any duty to investigate what the basis of your speech was."

Snow's next example of an alleged lie was McCarthy's statement that Dean Acheson (then Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs) had ousted both J. Anthony Panuch, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Administration (in charge of security), and State Department security officer Robert Bannerman from the department.

Panuch had reported to the FBI that Alger Hiss, then Director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs, was part of “an enormous espionage ring in Washington” back in 1946 -- two years before Whittaker Chambers' testimony; the same year, Bannerman had recommended the dismissal of William Stone, director of the State Department's Foreign Economic Administration (controlling the export of military technology).

Among other peculiarities, Stone had been a member of the board of the journal Amerasia, in the offices of which the OSS had discovered hundreds of stolen classified U.S. government documents; he was also a founder of the U.S. branch of the Institute for Pacific Relations, which was identified in a unanimous report of the bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee as “a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.” He was nevertheless cleared by the State Department board chaired by Snow. When McCarthy blew the whistle, Truman's Civil Service Loyalty Review Board took Stone's case out of Snow's hands for review, whereupon Stone abruptly resigned.

McCarthy asked Snow, "Do you say I lied when I said Acheson had gotten rid of them [Panuch and Bannerman]?" Snow replied: "Yes." McCarthy asked, "You know that Bannerman and Panuch are no longer there, do you not?" Snow fell back on his ignorance defense, answering: "I don't know that; no." McCarthy asked "...on what theory can you say I was lying when you now tell us you do not know who the men were; you do not know who fired them; you do not even know how they were forced out of the department?"

Yes, Snow accused McCarthy of lying, but when asked for substantiation, it turned out that he didn't know what he was talking about: He didn't know that a congressional investigation had found one of his charges to be false; he didn't know about the depositions showing another to be false; and he didn't even know that Bannerman and Panuch had been ousted, much less who was or was not responsible.

Not only did Snow fail to show that McCarthy knew what he was saying was false, he failed even to show that it was wrong. Moreover, even if McCarthy had been wrong in any of these statements, Snow had zero evidence to back up his accusation that McCarthy knew what he was saying was wrong. Since Snow's allegations against McCarthy actually were false, should we jump to the conclusion that Snow was lying? Since he assumed without evidence that McCarthy was guilty, should we apply the same standard to Snow? I don't know whether Snow knew what he was saying was false, or if he really was as clueless as he appeared to be. When he repeated these false allegations to McKinzie 20 years later, I don't know whether Snow remembered that what he was saying was false, or if his memory was playing tricks on him. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt he denied to McCarthy.

But if Snow was telling the truth, he didn't bother to check the facts before going off half-cocked to make wild, unfounded, and false allegations of serious wrongdoing, with reckless disregard for the character of his target.

That's pretty much a textbook definition of “McCarthyism.”

 

[mdn2000]

Jake and Gadawg are funny because they think that they are both debater and referee. We post and link to sources while they go, "Yeah? Nyah nyah nyah!" and then declare themselves the winner.

They bring up Gen Snow, when Snow was clearly the Jake Starkey of his time.

Gen Snow would say, "McCarthy is a liar! State Dept is free of Communist influence!" Then when asked to show proof, Gen Snow, like Jake threatening to quote footnotes to a book he still did not read, made a total fool of himself before Congress.

Blacklisted by history: the untold ... - Google Books

Pages 294-295

I find Jakes posts to be of more substance than a dumb country boy's.

The far right's evidence has been discounted time and time again, and the far right here won't evaluate the counter evidence, so all they can do now is attack personality

When the far right begins strawman argumentation, they admit they have lost the discussion.

Guys, why won't you answer though I have posted this at least ten times, "Why was it JM's own party members who pulled him down?"

My evidence has yet to be addressed, Oppenhiemer.

I can see how you can read my post as insulting, in hindsight it reads that way, the Dumb Country Boy remark is another user I did not wish to identify personally, the user will recognize this description of himself for its a quote of his own he made in reference of himself.

If you notice I do not randomly join a debate with you, that is because I do not know enough of the many subjects you participate in. I have not studied Mccarthy, I know a bit, I hear a bit, and I trust what I hear because of the people who state it. I have yet to find anything that counters the facts I gather from my sources.

I cannot address your point without a huge internet search, my typical way of addressing subjects that interest me is to buy dozens of books and read them. Dozens of used books that seem relevant, books by people who lived in the times and books by historians.

If the arguement is that Mccarthy was grasping at straws and there was not a threat then that is easily proven as bullshit. I do not need to address Mccarthy at all to show the historical facts. The facts stand on thier own.

If your arguement is that Mccarthy was a drunk, great, big deal.

Oppenhiemer factually consorted with known Communists.

When I use the term Communist and as the term is used historically its not used in reference to an ideology, that is Marxism. Communism is the specific to the USSR, to state people knowingly associated with Communists states said person was associating with a person who affiliated with the Communism, or Communist working with the USSR.

This is not a matter that Mccarthy thought Liberal Ideology was Marxist, Mccarthy did not attack Ideology, Mccarthy went after people known to be working or connected or contacting Communist working directly with Communist as in Communism is specific to Russia.

Is that clear, the fight was not against ideology, it was a fight against Communist connected to or working with the USSR against the USA from within our corporations to our government.

I think the left must make this discussion about Mccarthy because the facts are to ugly, the facts stand on thier own, facts and investigations conducted by Truman and his administration, concerns identified by the Roosevelt administration, facts that are established long before Mccarthy.

Oppenhiemer, so simple, impossible to refute, to discuss Oppenhiemer the truth is painfully clear. Those who attack Mccarthy either knowingly or unwittingly are diverting the attention away from the facts.

Communist were actively spying and stealing and working from within our government.

 

[Gadawg73]

Excellent post. Where can the original source be found?

Truman Library. Original transcripts from the interview. McKinzie also wrote a book on it.

Thank you, gadawg, for identifying your source. You're a scholar and a gentleman. (By the way, what's the name of the McKinzie book?) I originally suspected that this was your source, but I had discarded that hypothesis because your quote of Gen. Snow is slightly different from what Snow actually says in the transcript, posted at

Truman Library - Conrad E. Snow Oral History Interview

You quote Snow as saying

"I accused McCarthy of making false statements about matters he knew were false"

What Snow actually says in the transcript is "I accused Senator McCarthy of making false statements about matters, that he must have known were false" (p. 30) and "I told Senator McCarthy to his face at that hearing that he was making statements that were untrue and he knew they were untrue." (p. 31)

I remember discussing this interview with Evans while he was writing Blacklisted by History. I thought I knew a lot about McCarthy from reading Oshinsky, Rovere, Reeves, etc., and I was always looking for something to trip Evans up. I brandished this interview and told him it seemed pretty damning for McCarthy. As usual, Evans directed me to the primary source, the hearing transcripts. What I found there shattered some of my fondest illusions.

In his congressional testimony, Snow, then chairman of the State Department Loyalty-Security Board, accused McCarthy of lying. Sen. Homer Ferguson (R-MI) said, "[W]e are going to ask for the proof that these statements by Senator McCarthy were false....” Asked for examples of lies he alleged McCarthy had told. Snow responded: "the accusation is that the State Department had 205, or whatever number he chose to call it, known Communists.... He made the same statement over and over again."

Snow made three false statements here: the number of suspects, the allegations against them, and their locations.

In place of “helping to shape our foreign policy,” Snow said “the State Department”; in place of “57,” he said “205, or whatever number he chose to call it” (he made the “205” allegation more explicit in the McKinzie interview: “In February, 1950, Senator Joseph M. McCarthy stated publicly that there were 205 known Communists in the State Department.” [p. 50]); and in place of “individuals who would appear to be either card carrying Communists or certainly loyal to the Communist Party,” he said “known Communists.”

Regarding the number of suspects: The charge that McCarthy had said “205” (rather than “57,” as he claimed) in Wheeling, was first made by Sen. William Benton (D-CT), as the very first charge in a bill he wrote to eject McCarthy from the Senate. The Senate (then under control of the Democratic Party) sent staff investigators to Wheeling to try to substantiate Benton's charges. The investigation concluded that what McCarthy actually said was "I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy” -- exactly what McCarthy claimed he had said. According to one investigator: “The newly unearthed evidence demolished Senator Benton’s charges in all their material respects and thoroughly proved Senator McCarthy’s account of the facts to be truthful.” The investigative memo on all this was quietly buried, but the charge that McCarthy had said “205” was likewise dropped. Thus McCarthy's statement is recorded in the Congressional Record to this day as reading "57," not "205."

McCarthy asked, "Mr. Snow, are you aware of the fact that the investigators for the Gillette-Monroney Committee went to Wheeling, W.Va., and completely disproved what you have said?" Snow replied: "I am not aware of that." McCarthy asked, "Did you not read that in the paper?" Snow answered "No, sir." McCarthy asked, "Did you not think that before going out and making that statement, that you should check on matters like that?"

Even Benton didn't deny that McCarthy had said “individuals who would appear to be either card carrying Communists or certainly loyal to the Communist Party,” rather than “known Communists.” As I mentioned:

Fellow-travelers who were not CP members but were “loyal to the Communist Party” were explicitly targeted by the Truman Loyalty Order (“Membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, Fascist, Communist

Benton likewise never denied that McCarthy had said “helping to shape our foreign policy” (not “in the State Department”). Not all McCarthy's suspects were in the State Department; some were at Treasury, Commerce the UN, etc. (Likewise, even Benton never claimed that McCarthy used the number 205 “over and over again”; his allegation was that McCarthy had used this number only once, in the Wheeling speech, thereafter switching to 57.)

Snow's next example of an alleged lie was McCarthy's statement that the State Department's personnel files had been tampered with. Snow knew this charge was false, he testified, because the files had been in his possession since June 9, 1947. But McCarthy's statement had referred to depositions from four current and former State Department employees, stating that they had been ordered to remove material from these files in 1946.

McCarthy asked Snow, "Are you aware of the fact that the statements cover a period of time before June 9, 1947?" Snow replied: "No, sir." Astonishingly, Snow admitted, "I was so confident that the files had never been rifled that I had no presentiment of any duty to investigate what the basis of your speech was."

Snow's next example of an alleged lie was McCarthy's statement that Dean Acheson (then Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs) had ousted both J. Anthony Panuch, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Administration (in charge of security), and and State Department security officer Robert Bannerman from the department.

Panuch had reported to the FBI that Alger Hiss, then Director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs, was part of “an enormous espionage ring in Washington” back in 1946 -- two years before Whittaker Chambers' testimony; the same year, Bannerman had recommended the dismissal of William Stone, director of the State Department's Foreign Economic Administration (controlling the export of military technology).

Among other peculiarities, Stone had been a member of the board of the journal Amerasia, in the offices of which the OSS had discovered hundreds of stolen classified U.S. government documents; he was also a founder of the U.S. branch of the Institute for Pacific Relations, which was identified in a unanimous report of the bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee as “a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.” He was nevertheless cleared by the State Department board chaired by Snow. When McCarthy blew the whistle, Truman's Civil Service Loyalty Review Board took Stone's case out of Snow's hands for review, whereupon Stone abruptly resigned.

McCarthy asked Snow, "Do you say I lied when I said Acheson had gotten rid of them [Panuch and Bannerman]?" Snow replied: "Yes." McCarthy asked, "You know that Bannerman and Panuch are no longer there, do you not?" Snow answered: "I don't know that; no." McCarthy asked "...on what theory can you say I was lying when you now tell us you do not know who the men were; you do not know who fired them; you do not even know how they were forced out of the department?"

Yes, Snow accused McCarthy of lying, but when asked for specifics, it turned out that he didn't know what he was talking about: He didn't know that a congressional investigation had found one of his charges to be false; he didn't know about the depositions showing another to be false; and he didn't even know that Bannerman and Panuch had been ousted, much less who was or was not responsible.

Not only did Snow fail to show that McCarthy knew what he was saying was false, he failed even to show that it was wrong. Moreover, even if McCarthy had been wrong in any of these statements, Snow had zero evidence to back up his accusation that McCarthy knew what he was saying was wrong. Since Snow's allegations against McCarthy actually were false, should we jump to the conclusion that Snow was lying? Since he assumed without evidence that McCarthy was guilty, should we apply the same standard to Snow? I don't know whether Snow knew what he was saying was false, or if he really was as clueless as he appeared to be. When he repeated these false allegations to McKinzie 20 years later, I don't know whether Snow remembered that what he was saying was false, or if his memory was playing tricks on him. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt he denied to McCarthy.

Nevertheless, if Snow was telling the truth, then he didn't bother to check the facts before going off half-cocked to make wild, unfounded, and false allegations of serious wrongdoing, with reckless disregard for the character of his target.

That's pretty much a textbook definition of “McCarthyism.”

Snow never made any false allegations.

 

[Dante]

Joe was a drunken scoundrel who died as he live...a pathetic and lonely death had he.

good riddance to an evil man if ever there were one

 

[Gadawg73]

I find Jakes posts to be of more substance than a dumb country boy's.

The far right's evidence has been discounted time and time again, and the far right here won't evaluate the counter evidence, so all they can do now is attack personality

When the far right begins strawman argumentation, they admit they have lost the discussion.

Guys, why won't you answer though I have posted this at least ten times, "Why was it JM's own party members who pulled him down?"

My evidence has yet to be addressed, Oppenhiemer.

I can see how you can read my post as insulting, in hindsight it reads that way, the Dumb Country Boy remark is another user I did not wish to identify personally, the user will recognize this description of himself for its a quote of his own he made in reference of himself.

If you notice I do not randomly join a debate with you, that is because I do not know enough of the many subjects you participate in. I have not studied Mccarthy, I know a bit, I hear a bit, and I trust what I hear because of the people who state it. I have yet to find anything that counters the facts I gather from my sources.

I cannot address your point without a huge internet search, my typical way of addressing subjects that interest me is to buy dozens of books and read them. Dozens of used books that seem relevant, books by people who lived in the times and books by historians.

If the arguement is that Mccarthy was grasping at straws and there was not a threat then that is easily proven as bullshit. I do not need to address Mccarthy at all to show the historical facts. The facts stand on thier own.

If your arguement is that Mccarthy was a drunk, great, big deal.

Oppenhiemer factually consorted with known Communists.

When I use the term Communist and as the term is used historically its not used in reference to an ideology, that is Marxism. Communism is the specific to the USSR, to state people knowingly associated with Communists states said person was associating with a person who affiliated with the Communism, or Communist working with the USSR.

This is not a matter that Mccarthy thought Liberal Ideology was Marxist, Mccarthy did not attack Ideology, Mccarthy went after people known to be working or connected or contacting Communist working directly with Communist as in Communism is specific to Russia.

Is that clear, the fight was not against ideology, it was a fight against Communist connected to or working with the USSR against the USA from within our corporations to our government.

I think the left must make this discussion about Mccarthy because the facts are to ugly, the facts stand on thier own, facts and investigations conducted by Truman and his administration, concerns identified by the Roosevelt administration, facts that are established long before Mccarthy.

Oppenhiemer, so simple, impossible to refute, to discuss Oppenhiemer the truth is painfully clear. Those who attack Mccarthy either knowingly or unwittingly are diverting the attention away from the facts.

Communist were actively spying and stealing and working from within our government.

Go ahead and call me a "dumb country boy". Doesn't matter to me.
Sticks and stones.
That is all you have. I addressed Oppenheimer. He was the head of The Manhattan Project and won the war for us in the Pacific.
Is it against the law to be a communist?
Facts are a real bitch for you, aren't they?
Talk is cheap. I used to let my pads do the talking.
Name callers are weak.

 

[Mark LaRochelle]

Snow never made any false allegations.

McKinzie also wrote a book on it.

If you don't mind,

...what's the name of the McKinzie book?