The Success of the Big Lie

[Dr.Traveler]

You can't be that dense. Your agenda must be to support the McCarthy slander at all costs, and protect from criticism the party that, even today, continues to attempt to shut down dissent.

Where did he attack the Republican Party?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

State exactly what he did that was in error, and name the individual that he harmed and in what way that individual was materially harmed: in other words, beyond hurt feeling, such as you evinced.

For the record, numerous examples have been cited in this thread and links given to instances of people who lost their jobs or were suspended as soon as they came under investigation by McCarthy. In many of these cases the person under investigation exercised his or her right to 5th Ammendment protection only for McCarthy to very viciously go after the person publicly.

I'm curious. If someone makes an unproven accusation against you, and you are suspeneded for a period of 3-4 years, or worse, you lose your job, wouldn't you say you've been harmed?

You might have a case if McCarthy had limited himself to employees requiring security clearance. You might even have a case (albeit shaky) if McCarthy had limited himself to just federal employees. However, he did not. And people did lose jobs, incomes, and respect. People were dragged through the mud because they had a dissenting opinion from McCarthy.

That's the truly heinous crime here. McCarthyism represented an effort to criminalize dissent, and where it could not, it tried to make dissent Un-American. That's why people attack McCarthy. I could give a damn about whether he was a Republican or Democrat. Anyone who acted as McCarthy did would come under attack by Conservatives who value limited government and Liberals who value civil rights.

Just curious, which of Ms. Coulter's best sellers have you read?

Or do you take the MSNBC approach to knowledge?

Her books? None. I read her column as part of an ongoing effort to seek out differing opinion. From time to time she has very good and salient points. The problem is that she follows up a well reasoned arguement by an incredibly shrill headline seeking remark on a regular basis. She enjoys attention, and actively seeks it out.

" Projection and self loathing seem to be a common theme."

Psychobabble.

Weak. Combined with this quote:

"...pseudo-intellectual, babble..."
I understand why you might believe that. Best of luck with your education.

And this one:

"...you leave us with only one question..."

Only three kinds of folks can use 'we' when referring to himself:
1. Royalty

2. Editors of newspapers

3. Someone with a tapeworm


Best wishes for an improvement in your health.

You can't have any illusions about how your'e coming off in this thread.

You've created a ficticious strawman in your head about McCarthy's attackers. I hope that should you be able to exorcize it, your attitude might improve.

 

[PoliticalChic]

State exactly what he did that was in error, and name the individual that he harmed and in what way that individual was materially harmed: in other words, beyond hurt feeling, such as you evinced.

For the record, numerous examples have been cited in this thread and links given to instances of people who lost their jobs or were suspended as soon as they came under investigation by McCarthy. In many of these cases the person under investigation exercised his or her right to 5th Ammendment protection only for McCarthy to very viciously go after the person publicly.

I'm curious. If someone makes an unproven accusation against you, and you are suspeneded for a period of 3-4 years, or worse, you lose your job, wouldn't you say you've been harmed?

You might have a case if McCarthy had limited himself to employees requiring security clearance. You might even have a case (albeit shaky) if McCarthy had limited himself to just federal employees. However, he did not. And people did lose jobs, incomes, and respect. People were dragged through the mud because they had a dissenting opinion from McCarthy.

That's the truly heinous crime here. McCarthyism represented an effort to criminalize dissent, and where it could not, it tried to make dissent Un-American. That's why people attack McCarthy. I could give a damn about whether he was a Republican or Democrat. Anyone who acted as McCarthy did would come under attack by Conservatives who value limited government and Liberals who value civil rights.

Just curious, which of Ms. Coulter's best sellers have you read?

Or do you take the MSNBC approach to knowledge?

Her books? None. I read her column as part of an ongoing effort to seek out differing opinion. From time to time she has very good and salient points. The problem is that she follows up a well reasoned arguement by an incredibly shrill headline seeking remark on a regular basis. She enjoys attention, and actively seeks it out.


Weak. Combined with this quote:

"...pseudo-intellectual, babble..."
I understand why you might believe that. Best of luck with your education.

And this one:

"...you leave us with only one question..."

Only three kinds of folks can use 'we' when referring to himself:
1. Royalty

2. Editors of newspapers

3. Someone with a tapeworm


Best wishes for an improvement in your health.

You can't have any illusions about how your'e coming off in this thread.

You've created a ficticious strawman in your head about McCarthy's attackers. I hope that should you be able to exorcize it, your attitude might improve.

First, a subject near to my heart, and revealing of yours: Ann Coulter
Thank you for the honest response, that you have read none of her best sellers. This explains your attitude toward her.

And your objections? Amazingly similar to your complaint about the Senator:"The problem is that she follows up a well reasoned arguement by an incredibly shrill headline seeking remark on a regular basis. She enjoys attention, and actively seeks it out."

So, you admit that the problem for you is not what one says, merely how one says it.
It smacks of cowardice. I appologize in advance if this does not apply.

My friend, allow me to hold the mirror up to you:

Volumes of verbiage, short on documentation.

You have yet to show
1. Knowledge of the subject.
2. Individuals who were innocent of the charges, yet punished.
3. "suspeneded for a period of 3-4 years" and not compensated, as Val Lorwin was.

On the contrary, Communist agents were held up as heros and celebrities by folks like you.

Case in point:
Alger Hiss- . Proven guilty, jailed for 44 months for perjury (the statute of limitations had run out on espionage), Alger Hiss, traitorous agent of Soviet espionage, the American left views Hiss as a hero.

After leaving prison, he spoke at Princeton and was given a standing ovation. Bard College actually has the Alger Hiss Chair of Social Studies (Lawrence Helm's Blog: The Alger Hiss Chair at Bard College)

In 1972, Massachusetts readmitted him to the bar. Liberals would never turn their backs on a man who spied for Stalin against America.

Even Lattimore was allowed to keep his job.


Now, re-read this post carefully and you will see what others have seen: I document my posts, support statements that I make.

And you? Bloviate. Wring your hands, and tell how incensed you are over...what? The same statement over and over, in different words. 'McCarthy- bad man!"

How very penetrating!


I've made the same request over and over: name the suffering innocent individuals harmed by Senator McCarthy.

When I shoot down each of your efforts with documentation, you blithely amble off as though I never said it.

Therefore you have annointed yourself as one of those message board posters who, whether you know anything or not, merely wishes to post. And, clearly, you know nothing about this subject.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that, and without folks like you, my thread would be very, very short. So thanks: this is valuable information that needed to be gotten out.

Keep up the good work.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can't be that dense. Your agenda must be to support the McCarthy slander at all costs, and protect from criticism the party that, even today, continues to attempt to shut down dissent.

Where did he attack the Republican Party?

Witty? Only half so.


Let's see if you are educable.

"Democrats are turning their fire on Scott Rasmussen, the prolific independent pollster whose surveys on elections, President Obama’s popularity and a host of other issues are surfacing in the media with increasing frequency. "

Read more: Low favorables: Democrats rip Rasmussen - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com



"Interviewed on CNBC Tuesday, President Obama vented his displeasure with FOX News, the cable network whose own senior vice president of programming has called it "the voice of the opposition" to the Obama administration. "
President Obama Attacks FOX News -- Politics Daily


"After the Democratic convention, Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing a TV ad that was embarrassing to Barack Obama. The commercial focused on the longtime relationship between Obama and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer sent letters to the Justice Department imploring the agency to pursue criminal action against those behind the ads. It was not lost on anyone at that time that Bauer was considered a candidate to be the next U.S. Attorney-General. "
The American Spectator : Obama's Enemies List

"Another Czar WHO WANTS TO DESTROY YOUR FREEDOMS.

Mr. Lloyd’s actual title is FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer. Lloyd plans to implement what I call the reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. Lloyd is a staunch proponent on the enforcement of the FCC regulations known as “media diversity” and “localism.”
Obama FCC Czar Mark Lloyd wants to Shut Down Dissenting Media


Help me with this: does this post make you look like a jerk, or merely a comedian whose joke fell flat?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

First, a subject near to my heart, and revealing of yours: Ann Coulter
Thank you for the honest response, that you have read none of her best sellers. This explains your attitude toward her.

I've read enough. I've seen very little to suggest that her books rise above the level of her weekly columns. I'd put forward that the weekly musings of an author are more indicative of that authors intellectual skill and writing ability than the more polished book.

And your objections? Amazingly similar to your complaint about the Senator:"The problem is that she follows up a well reasoned arguement by an incredibly shrill headline seeking remark on a regular basis. She enjoys attention, and actively seeks it out."

No, not very similar at all. McCarthy's public comments were not well reasoned. And yes, I find shrillness objectionable in adults. It is a childish habit to resort to attention grabbing comments and outbursts. That has no place in a reasoned conversation.

So, you admit that the problem for you is not what one says, merely how one says it.
It smacks of cowardice. I appologize in advance if this does not apply.

None of it did, but again, very rarely do you post anything that does apply. Your tactic in this thread has been clear:

1. Create strawmen.
2. Attempt to put words in other poster's mouths.
3. Ignore replies that actually refute what you way.

That's fine. The internet is filled with folks that act in this way. It is dissapointing that you fail to rise above the crowd.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First, a subject near to my heart, and revealing of yours: Ann Coulter
Thank you for the honest response, that you have read none of her best sellers. This explains your attitude toward her.

I've read enough. I've seen very little to suggest that her books rise above the level of her weekly columns. I'd put forward that the weekly musings of an author are more indicative of that authors intellectual skill and writing ability than the more polished book.

And your objections? Amazingly similar to your complaint about the Senator:"The problem is that she follows up a well reasoned arguement by an incredibly shrill headline seeking remark on a regular basis. She enjoys attention, and actively seeks it out."

No, not very similar at all. McCarthy's public comments were not well reasoned. And yes, I find shrillness objectionable in adults. It is a childish habit to resort to attention grabbing comments and outbursts. That has no place in a reasoned conversation.

So, you admit that the problem for you is not what one says, merely how one says it.
It smacks of cowardice. I appologize in advance if this does not apply.

None of it did, but again, very rarely do you post anything that does apply. Your tactic in this thread has been clear:

1. Create strawmen.
2. Attempt to put words in other poster's mouths.
3. Ignore replies that actually refute what you way.

That's fine. The internet is filled with folks that act in this way. It is dissapointing that you fail to rise above the crowd.

This is not a response, as I have clearly documented: no strawmen here.

You are merely unequipped to refute.

But stop sulking.

Nobody knows who you really are.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Help me with this: does this post make you look like a jerk, or merely a comedian whose joke fell flat?

Considering you're the one defending a Senator who abused his office and tried to criminalize opinions that differed from his own, I'd say your post is much more illuminating about your own personality.

And for the record, I find absolutely nothing about McCarthyism funny. I do not find attempts to criminalize dissent by the Left or the Right funny.

And I definitely do not find you funny. I don't laugh when I read your witty posts... I'm just a bit sad for you.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

This is not a response, as I have clearly documented: no strawmen here.

You said this:

On the contrary, Communist agents were held up as heros and celebrities by folks like you.

Case in point:
Alger Hiss- . Proven guilty, jailed for 44 months for perjury (the statute of limitations had run out on espionage), Alger Hiss, traitorous agent of Soviet espionage, the American left views Hiss as a hero.

You should be very easily able to find a link, quote, or citation where I hold up Hiss as a hero, claim Hiss was innocent, or even dismiss the charges against him.

Snap to it or admit that you are once again guilty of putting your words in other posters mouths.

Find even one instance, one, where anyone here has even complained that McCarthy targetted Democrats.

Go.

I understand you're dense, but the issue with McCarthy was never about political parties. It isn't even a debate about the threat Communism posed. It is, was, and always will be about a US Senator using his power and position to start a witch hunt that any reasonable American, regardless of political stripe, would find distasteful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Help me with this: does this post make you look like a jerk, or merely a comedian whose joke fell flat?

Considering you're the one defending a Senator who abused his office and tried to criminalize opinions that differed from his own, I'd say your post is much more illuminating about your own personality.

And for the record, I find absolutely nothing about McCarthyism funny. I do not find attempts to criminalize dissent by the Left or the Right funny.

And I definitely do not find you funny. I don't laugh when I read your witty posts... I'm just a bit sad for you.

Let's dissect your blather, er, posts.

First, I sliced and diced your partisan effort to say that the Repubs are the party that tries to shut up any disagreement, and, sure enough, as I stated earlier, you 'blithely amble away.'

You neither retract or appologize for the inaccuracy, nor defend against the documentation that I provide.


Second, suffering from inability and lack of imagination, you take the language that I provide and attempt to piggy back some comment using same.

"... I read your witty posts..."


I guess it's true: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Again your post is a prime example of Deja Moo: I have the feeling I've heard this bull before.

Consider yourself dissed and dismissed.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You neither retract or appologize for the inaccuracy, nor defend against the documentation that I provide.

There is no inaccuracy. In addtion, I never defend actions, on one political side or the other, to criminalize dissent.

I find it sad that you do.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Witty? Only half so.

That is half more than you ever are.

I have read Ms. Coulter; I was quite tempted to respond one of her book length diatribes with “REASON is not spelled with a T” Coulter is, for lack of a better term, an opinionated hack. She represents the worst of right wing American media. She skirts the line of total idiocy and frequently crosses it.

Just like you.

Your ignorant rant about McCarthy is just that, an ignorant rant. Nothing more, and all you appeals to authority, and such poor authority as Coulter, mean only that you are too stupid for reasoned debate.

 

[rr1]

So, it would appear that to some no McCarthy would have equated to NO PROBLEM?

I see.

 

[Charles Stucker]

So, it would appear that to some no McCarthy would have equated to NO PROBLEM?

I see.

Your capacity for logic knows no bounds.
No lower bounds.

Yes there was a problem.
McCarthy made it WORSE

Two wrongs do not make a right, and McCarthy was in the wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yesterday there was an excellent thread on the Ukrainian holocaust.

Today is the anniversary of the sentencing of Alger Hiss. Most folks don’t remember him, but most Americans have been fed the lie that the real enemy of America during WW II and the post-war era was Senator Joseph McCarthy. The Big Lie.


January 25, 1950 Alger Hiss sentenced for perjury for denying he was a Soviet spy (see Jan. 21). Dean Acheson, Truman’s Sec’y of State, said:
“I do not intend to turn my back on Alger Hiss.”

February 9,1950 In his famous Wheeling, West Virginia speech, Senator Joe McCarthy said he had the names of 57 card-carrying Communists in the State Department. [Two weeks after Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury.]


If you have always accepted "Senator McCarthy as personificaton of evil" as true, can you name any innocent folks, -that means people who did not support or work for the blood-soaked ideology that took over many parts of the world, threatened America, and was responsible for some hundred million deaths, Communism, -whose lives were ‘ruined’ by the spotlight that Senator McCarthy pointed toward Communists, Communist supporters, and officials of the United States who were lax in protecting the country?

My thesis here is that Senator McCarthy was an American hero who performed a necessary and valuable service, and should be honored for it.

McCarthy was a damned drunken demagogue. He should have recieved far more censure than he did. When he died, it was good riddance to bad rubbish.

McCarthy's (and Ashcroft's) Nemesis

Hunter typed the preamble of the Declaration, six amendments from the Constitution's Bill of Rights and the 15th amendment into the form of a petition. Then, he headed to a park where families were celebrating the Fourth. Of the 112 people he approached, 20 accused Hunter of being a communist. Many more said they approved of sentiments expressed in the petition but feared signing a document that might be used by McCarthy, who frequently charged that signers of petitions for civil rights, civil liberties or economic justice were either active Communists or fellow travelers. Only one man recognized the historic words and signed his name to the petition.

Hunter's petition drive became a national sensation. Time magazine, The Washington Post and, of course, The Nation cited it as evidence of the damage done by McCarthy and his 'ism to the discourse. President Harry Truman called The Capital Times to praise the paper and cited Hunter's article in a speech. Hunter and his colleagues on The Capital Times would battle McCarthy for the next six years, gathering evidence of wrongdoing and deception that would eventually embolden other journalists and help shift the political climate sufficiently to permit the Senate's censure of the red-baiting senator.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yesterday there was an excellent thread on the Ukrainian holocaust.

Today is the anniversary of the sentencing of Alger Hiss. Most folks don’t remember him, but most Americans have been fed the lie that the real enemy of America during WW II and the post-war era was Senator Joseph McCarthy. The Big Lie.


January 25, 1950 Alger Hiss sentenced for perjury for denying he was a Soviet spy (see Jan. 21). Dean Acheson, Truman’s Sec’y of State, said:
“I do not intend to turn my back on Alger Hiss.”

February 9,1950 In his famous Wheeling, West Virginia speech, Senator Joe McCarthy said he had the names of 57 card-carrying Communists in the State Department. [Two weeks after Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury.]


If you have always accepted "Senator McCarthy as personificaton of evil" as true, can you name any innocent folks, -that means people who did not support or work for the blood-soaked ideology that took over many parts of the world, threatened America, and was responsible for some hundred million deaths, Communism, -whose lives were ‘ruined’ by the spotlight that Senator McCarthy pointed toward Communists, Communist supporters, and officials of the United States who were lax in protecting the country?

My thesis here is that Senator McCarthy was an American hero who performed a necessary and valuable service, and should be honored for it.

Have you read the book, "Blacklisted by History", about Senator McCarthy? Fascinating read.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My thesis here is that Senator McCarthy was an American hero who performed a necessary and valuable service, and should be honored for it.

My opinion is that, like all politicos, there was a kernal of truth under the mountain of bullshit McCarthy generated: hysterics regarding the "Red Menace" were not regarded as candidates for the loony bin, but good candidates for congress, as much as hysterics regarding "Witchcraft" were regarded as Moral Models.

I think a very big problem in America is that we have turned into an "It's ok" nation meaning nobody does anything wrong. .... Sad, huh?

Accountability went out the window with the new age progressives.

I disagree that "new age progressives" have been the cause of declining social accountability. IMHO McCarthyism, and the entire radical reaction to fairly moderate political movements during the 1950's and 1960's caused the pendulum of cultural norms to swing the other direction and accept "moral relativism" as a strong arguement to defend the weakest case.

What we (Western Civilization) needs now are more clearly defining events that are "Wrong" or "Evil." We need another Hitler, another OBL, to reset the equilibrium.......Interestingly, Islam has no concept of Moral Relativity.

.....Unhappily the stakes are higher today than during the 1950's when MCCarthy was able to define Evil as Communism.....I'm sure the only act that can happen today that would convince moral relativists that Evil exists, is the explosion of a nuclear device inside a major city during a gay pride parade......

Islamist may teach The West that McCarthy might have had a point: Radicalism cannot be countered with Moral Relativism, but only with Radicalism.

Two questions. Is it hysteria if the Reds really ARE infiltrating the government? And if they are, can you be a good candidate for Congress if you DON'T think that's a bad idea?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"fairly moderate political movements during the 1950's and 1960's ..."
Absurd. Would you use the same phrase with respect to the Nazis?

Simply apply the same rationale and sentiment to a scenario where two administrations were not only riddled with Nazis, paid by Hitler's government, but also known to be Nazis, and suddenly the ludicrousness of your statement shines through.

" “[The] relationship [between communism and Nazism] may never be fully understood. But the Russian Red Terror, in its emphasis on the elimination of entire classes of peoples, in its description of opponents as "vermin" to be exterminated, does seem like a precursor of the German concentration camps. Moreover, Nazism profited greatly not only from Lenin's and Stalin's Gulag system--Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, solicited reports about the operations of Soviet camps--but also from Bolshevism itself, which served as both a whipping boy and, at times, a political idea that could be collaborated with. The two ideologies validated each other."
WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1999

Ah, so this is the little red herring that we're supposed to run after?:

Communist Sympathisers = Nazi Sympathisers

and after we begin running after this ridiculously obvious deviation from the topic, then we can begin making absurd leaps of logic like equating American Communists during 1950-1960 with German Nazis during 1930's-1940's.


Then just to raise the volume of your laughable gullibility:

'hysterics regarding the "Red Menace" ...'

Wow, do you need a refresher!

This is akin to saying "only a child molester".

Lets at least try to remain On-Topic, shall we?

I'm not going to discuss the Nasi Party in Germany.
I'm not going to discuss Mao in China.
I'm not discussing Stalin's USSR.

I AM discussing McCarthyism. I'm defining this as the investigations of Senator McCarthy, in the USA, during the 1950's, m'k?

Now, dear madame, unless you can show me where the American Communist Party was smashing in Jewish Storefronts, sending people to gulags in Alaska, and forcably "reeducating intellectuals" at Harvard, I'll kindly ask you to try to, at very minimum, to insert some reality into your shrill replies.

Otherwise, go make me a sammich and bring me a beer.

You're going to discuss "McCarthyism", whatever the hell you think that was, without discussing the thing that McCarthy was fighting, and without allowing any analogies to similar threats in history? Really? That'll be a slick trick if you can manage it. Let the entertainment begin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Alger Hiss, Genuine Communist spy

Another Big Lie is to make FDR into a Great America President.

It's always amazed me that FDR allowed a Soviet spy to advise him at Yalta and managed not to be pilloried by history for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems that I have overestimated your conceptual abilities. .

Its true that you're certainly consistant in at least one thing: Poor Judgement

You meant, "Underestimated."

Still haven't read anything about American Communists sending anyone to a gulag, so your screeching has fallen on deaf ears.

After your meds begin to be effective, and you return to reality, let me know.

Until then you're just blithering.

Return to the kitchen, you forgot the pickle.

THAT is your standard? American Communists didn't personally send anyone to the gulag, they only spied and shilled for people who did, so they're all upstanding citizens?! You seriously want to go with that deliberate myopia as your argument?

You MUST be in college. Only someone too young to remember the Cold War - or too brain-damaged - could be this clueless on the subject.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Its true that you're certainly consistant in at least one thing: Poor Judgement

You meant, "Underestimated."

Still haven't read anything about American Communists sending anyone to a gulag, so your screeching has fallen on deaf ears.

After your meds begin to be effective, and you return to reality, let me know.

Until then you're just blithering.

Return to the kitchen, you forgot the pickle.

Still nothing about McCarthy?

And rather than 'overestimated,' let's try 'sorely disappointed.'

But, "... American Communists sending anyone to a gulag,..." let's make it really simple, as it seems that that is what you require: spies don't send anyone to gulags.

Spies prepare for their masters to take over, and the gulags follow.

Are you able to understand the distinction?

Overestimated.

And, I couldn't find the pickles, so I substituted a nordihydrocapsaicin pepper. You may need another beer.

Well, it seems that you're returning to reality.

Now, can you identify ONE SPY that McCarthy found?

I happen to LIKE peppers!!

So you feeble attempt to incapacitate me is foiled again!!

Well, let's see. Soviet agents questioned by McCarthy's Permanent Sumbcommittee on Investigations, who were later identified as such:

Mary Jane Keeney of the United Nations, and her husband, Philip Keeney, of the Office of Strategic Services
Lauchlin Currie, special assistant to President Roosevelt
Virginius Frank Coe, US Treasury and the International Monetary Fund
William Ludwig Ullman, delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference
Nathan Gregory Silvermaster United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies
Harold Glasser, U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy
Allan Rosenberg, Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board
Solomon Adler, U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of Mao Zedong
Robert T. Miller, Department of State; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives
Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives
Laurence Duggan, head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics
Leonard Mins, Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the Office of Strategic Services
Cedric Belfrage, British Security Coordination
Gerald Graze, U.S. State Department, confirmed in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives
David Karr, Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson
Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov, Daily Worker

Glad you asked. And yes, there are more.