Was Marilyn Monroe a Communist Sympathizer

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Study the Verona Papers.

Straight from the redacted source:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/decla...na/dated.shtml

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Are you going to maintain that what I said is a lie?

yup

Echoing his earlier wire to the President ("despite this State Department blackout..."), McCarthy grandly proclaimed he'd "penetrated Truman's Iron Curtain of secrecy," acquiring the files he was using via the efforts of "some good, loyal Americans in the State Department" whose jobs "would be worth nothing if [their] names were given." That all sounds very dark and conspiratorial, but, in reality, the source of nearly all of these "cases" was the "Lee list." McCarthy hadn't penetrated any "Iron Curtain of secrecy" to get them, nor had any State employees risked their necks by secreting them to him in the dead of night; the "Lee list" dossiers were drawn from files openly provided, by the administration itself, to the House of Representatives, three years earlier. They'd been bandied about the capitol for years. McCarthy had portrayed his information as current, then had weaved this spy-novel-style fiction about his primary source, which was, in reality, just a long-out-of-date committee file.

Evans, in writing about this, chooses to blow a lot of smoke:

"...arguably his [McCarthy's] single biggest miscue [in his oration to the Senate] was an error of omission--not telling his colleagues he was mining data from this list [the Lee list]. The reasons for this aren't entirely clear, as he would elsewhere freely cite the list as an important source of information..."

McCarthy wasn't committing some minor "error of omission" in this matter, though, and his motive seems pretty obvious--he was actively trying to mislead both the Senate and, by extension, the public he'd regaled with his wild charges, about the source of his information. This seemingly obvious fact tends to be given insufficient weight in the standard histories. The "Lee list" was a series of numbered cases. McCarthy, in presenting the information in the "Lee list" files, renumbered all of those cases. This made an orderly accounting of the charges much more difficult, and obfuscation, of which McCarthy proved a master, seems to be the only possible motive. Senator Homer Ferguson apparently deduced the "Lee list" origins of McCarthy's cases, and asked McCarthy why he "had taken them out of order" (a reference to the renumbering). McCarthy replied "I did take them in order. I get the impression that the Senator may have a file of his own." Essentially a denial that he was using the "Lee list" at all. McCarthy also presented findings by those who had assembled the files as though they were things he, himself, had learned. Again, his game seems pretty obvious.


Evans is clueless about all of this (or at least feigns cluelessness):

"Whatever his [McCarthy's] motive, his failure to cite the list in the beginning allowed his critics to make this a salient issue--deflecting notice from what the security information said to the procedural question of where, exactly, it had come from (a tactic used in many later conflicts)."

Suggesting that the worst possible interpretation of information in an old, out-of-date committee file raises questions about security procedures in the State Department three years ago? Not very sexy. Not the sort of thing that gets one's name in the paper. It sounds much snappier if you charge, as McCarthy had repeatedly, that you have the names of a number of card-carrying Communists who were then making policy in the State Department. To state the obvious, the relevance of McCarthy's source, bearing, as it does, directly on the accuracy of his charges, is self-evident in this matter. It's unclear by what logic Evans deduces that a question of such critical relevance is some sort of diversionary tactic, or a mere "procedural question." Probably the same sort of "logic" that told him it would be a good idea to waste six years of his life writing an "untold" story of Joseph McCarthy.

In addition to lying about the source of the dossiers, McCarthy distorted the information in them beyond recognition, again an indication that he was trying to conceal his source. In his recitation, he verbally transforms rumors and allegations into established fact, changes words like "liberal" into "communistically inclined," repeats charges recorded in the files without mentioning that the files also say those same charges were subsequently investigated and found to be without merit, and so on. William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell, in "McCarthy and His Enemies" (one of the earliest and still the best of the McCarthy apologies) mention this:

"A comparison of the dossier from which McCarthy got his material with McCarthy's own version of this material reveals that in 38 cases, he was guilty of exaggeration. On some occasions, 'fellow-traveller' had turned into 'Communist'; on others, 'alleged pro-Communist' had developed into 'pro-Communist.'"

Actually, the authors significantly understate McCarthy's distortions in his presentation. A much better and more detailed account of the incredible distortions, omissions, and outright lies offered by the Senator in his presentation is provided by Robert Griffith in "The Politics of Fear." Among other things, Griffith illustrates McCarthy's method by reprinting the actual "Lee list" information of a McCarthy subject, and comparing it to McCarthy's characterization. This is "Lee list" case #40:

"The employee is with the Office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has been no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941."

Here's how McCarthy presented the same case to the Senate:

"This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to his file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself. I am merely giving what is in the file."

Evans says almost nothing about this, and he spins it like a top:

"...as his critics would note, if the security information said someone had been identified as a Communist, he tended to cite the identification as fact--no 'allegedly' about it. In prosecutorial mode, he pushed the evidence hard to make an indictment and seldom erred through understatement."[1]

Unmentioned by Evans is that, at the same time McCarthy was falsifying the information in the files (in a way that, in spite of Evans' gross mischaracterization, would get a prosecutor fired), he was also assuring the Senate that he was giving them the straight story about the files. Even Buckley and Bozell concede that McCarthy "deserves to be censured" for telling the Senate that, in his presentation of the information, "I have given Senators the fullest, most complete, fairest resume of the files that I possibly could." He'd done no such thing.


Two days after this miserable performance, the Senate authorized an investigation into these charges. The Tydings committee assigned to carry out the task was a very partisan body, and though Evans and its critics have heaped a great deal of scorn upon it--often deservedly so--the fact is that McCarthy couldn't substantiate his charges, and, after McCarthy's public shenanigans, the committee reached the only conclusion open to it; a thorough repudiation of McCarthy. Unfortunately, the damage was already done; in the atmosphere of early Cold War fear and paranoia, McCarthy's star was in ascendancy. He would continue to rage for four years, making charges carelessly, and as a matter of routine, including, in his target package, pretty much anyone who disagreed with him, until, finally, even his own Republican party turned on him. He fell from grace, was censured by his colleagues, and ended his life in obscurity, drinking himself to death at age 48.

In this ignorant, backwards age that is the Bush America, Evans and the other McCarthy revisionists have a fertile audience, and the internet offers a powerful new tool for them to spread their nonsense, particularly to the young, impressionable dullards who make up a significant part of Bush's voting base. Still, the smart money says their best efforts will be in vain. It's just too extreme. McCarthy's reputation is a lost cause. Best bet: It stays that way. All the revisionists will succeed in doing is misleading a handful of already-misled reactionaries. The best that can be said about their efforts to rehabilitate McCarthy is that, the more resources they pour into the project, the less they'll have for causing trouble for the rest of us.


---

[1] These sorts of misrepresentations are legion throughout Evans' text. In a manner not unlike that of McCarthy himself, the author buries material inconvenient to his premise that McCarthy is a hero, distorts the available record beyond recognition, and isn't above outright lying to make his case. A good example of that turns up in his handling of the Esther Brunauer charges. McCarthy had charged that:

"Esther Caulkin Brunauer was very active in launching an organization called the American Union for Concerted Peace Efforts... [The AUCPE] was cited [by HUAC] as a Communist-front organization, the leader of which was the editor of the Daily Worker."

Brunauer admitted her involvement with the group, even said she took great pride in it. She said it was a patriotic enterprise, denied it was a communist front and denied that Clarence Hathaway (the Daily Worker editor in question) ever had any connection to it.

Evans pretends as though McCarthy's only "mistake" was in mentioning Hathaway as "the leader" instead of "a leader":

"So, sorting out the details, we find that McCarthy upgraded Clarence Hathaway to 'a' leader in the Peace Efforts agitation to 'the' leader, obviously a different connotation in terms of Communist influence. Over against this we may place the categorical statements of Mrs. Brunauer and the Tydings panel that Clarence Hathaway had no involvement with the enterprise whatever. Thus neither side in this dispute earned top marks for precision. Readers may judge for themselves which of the two errors was more misleading."

That's what passes for a caustic remark from Evans. Readers will judge for themselves how appropriate was Evans sarcasm when learning that the AUCPE, the organization to which Brunauer was connected, had, in fact, never "been cited as a Communist-front organization" by HUAC, and that Hathaway had, in fact, never been involved in it at all. The common speculation is that McCarthy may have confused her organization with another, the Union of Concerted Peace Efforts, which had been cited by HUAC as a front, and did have Hathaway as a leader. Whatever the case may be, there, though (and it's probably just as likely that McCarthy intentionally chose to exploit the similarly named orgs in making his case, figuring no one would ever know the difference), the fact is that what Brunauer said was correct, what McCarthy had charged was a lie, and Evans knowingly lies in his comments on the matter in order to "defend" McCarthy. We can ascertain this last because the facts regarding this accusation aren't new--they were detailed in "McCarthy and His Enemies," a McCarthy apology written all the way back in 1954 by William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell. Evans has read that book; he references it throughout in his own. He read it, so he knew the truth, and chose to lie.

That's the "scholarship" on display in this latest McCarthy apology



..................


just so you know, when somebody says something that is intentionally not the truth and then passes it on as the truth...it's called a lie

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Well assholes, I'm waiting. Did I lie?

yup, read above

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by vetteman

McCarthy established a bond with the powerful Kennedy family, which had high visibility among Catholics. McCarthy became a close friend of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., himself a fervent anti-Communist, and was a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. He dated two of Kennedy's daughters, Patricia and Eunice,[48][49] and was godfather to Robert F. Kennedy's first child, Kathleen Kennedy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

and what does that have exactly to do with Ann Coulter and Evans lying about McCarthy?

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by badbabysitter

and what does that have exactly to do with Ann Coulter and Evans lying about McCarthy?

RubDownSow challenged it as being false and you chimed in apparent agreement.

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by vetteman

RubDownSow challenged it as being false and you chimed in apparent agreement.

No, I chimed in on Evans and Coulter being lying douchebags when you posted their complete revisionist bullshit views of McCarthy

[RobDownSouth]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Are you going to maintain it's not true?

Oh it's true, alright, but it's also intellectually dishonest. Once again, your lack of context allows even casual readers to laugh at you.

You're insinuating the fact that McCarthy was friendly with the Kennedys as evidence that McCarthy was somehow a "RINO".

McCarthy aligned himself with the hardcore conservative wing of the Catholic Church, Fulton J Sheen and the like. Joe Kennedy was a huge fan of his.

McCarthy was the Rush Limbaugh of his day, a mud slinging demagogue.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth

Oh it's true, alright, but it's also intellectually dishonest. Once again, your lack of context allows even casual readers to laugh at you.

You're insinuating the fact that McCarthy was friendly with the Kennedys as evidence that McCarthy was somehow a "RINO".

McCarthy aligned himself with the hardcore conservative wing of the Catholic Church, Fulton J Sheen and the like. Joe Kennedy was a huge fan of his.

McCarthy was the Rush Limbaugh of his day, a mud slinging demagogue.

Bottom line, there were Russian agents and Communists working in the government. The Cold War against International Communism was necessary. More than 30,000 people and 70 Senators attended Mcarthy's funeral. A far cry from the hated rat leftists like yourself project today. Just sayin'.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by badbabysitter

No, I chimed in on Evans and Coulter being lying douchebags when you posted their complete revisionist bullshit views of McCarthy

I believe you quoted my answer to Rob, badbaby.

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by vetteman

I believe you quoted my answer to Rob, badbaby.

yet you included a seperate quote from me in that quote

I dont care who he palled around with

McCarthy was one of the darkestt blights in your nations history... he ruined thousands of innocent lives to further his own goals ...and ended up with almost nothing to show for it


having folks like Coulter and Evans lie through their teeth and omit things about him is an insult to your nation

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by badbabysitter

yet you included a seperate quote from me in that quote

I dont care who he palled around with

McCarthy was one of the darkestt blights in your nations history... he ruined thousands of innocent lives to further his own goals ...and ended up with almost nothing to show for it


having folks like Coulter and Evans lie through their teeth and omit things about him is an insult to your nation

You are sadly misinformed badbaby, it's hard to roll back 50 years of leftist propaganda, but try to dig a bit deeper. I lived through the era and frankly do not remember any "darkestt blights" on our history other then our own Democrats actively defending an implacable enemy who had murdered millions and enslaved hundreds of millions more. That was the blight on America's history. It took the Verona Papers documentation that Alger Hiss was a Russian agent to nail down the cover on that history book forever.

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by vetteman

You are sadly misinformed badbaby, it's hard to roll back 50 years of leftist propaganda, but try to dig a bit deeper. I lived through the era and frankly do not remember any "darkestt blights" on our history other then our own Democrats actively defending an implacable enemy who had murdered millions and enslaved hundreds of millions more. That was the blight on America's history. It took the Verona Papers documentation that Alger Hiss was a Russian agent to nail down the cover on that history book forever.

so he got Algier Hiss right.. and thousands wrong... that makes him a fucking hero?


he screwed over people who never did anything then theoritically have different opinions than him

the implaccapble enemy were American citizens who went to jail because other people said things about them, or they didnt say things about other people


I'm not the one misinformed here... you just choose the listen to Evans and Coulter as gospels when their bullshit has been completely debunked as historical revisionism


rights for me, but not for thee...great attitude

[Voodoo5150]

Vetteman, do you believe in our justice system, that people are innocent until proven guilty?

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by Voodoo5150

Vetteman, do you believe in our justice system, that people are innocent until proven guilty?

apparrently not if they're communists, might be communists, there are rumours about them being communists or being anonymously witnessed actively being a communist

[Voodoo5150]

Originally Posted by badbabysitter

apparrently not if they're communists, might be communists, there are rumours about them being communists or being anonymously witnessed actively being a communist

Well, yea, a lot of these far right guys tend to choose and pick the laws they like for a given situation. But mostly I just wanted him to take a look at it from a slightly different perspective. Proving him wrong won't change anything, Fox News has conditioned them to distrust anyone but them. Insulting him won't change anything, he'll just double down on his beliefs. But get him to just slightly adjust the angle he looks at it... might get him to see it for what it really is.

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by Voodoo5150

Well, yea, a lot of these far right guys tend to choose and pick the laws they like for a given situation. But mostly I just wanted him to take a look at it from a slightly different perspective. Proving him wrong won't change anything, Fox News has conditioned them to distrust anyone but them. Insulting him won't change anything, he'll just double down on his beliefs. But get him to just slightly adjust the angle he looks at it... might get him to see it for what it really is.

Nope, he'll just change the suject

I'm still waiting for him to rebuff me on Margaret Sanger from well over a year ago

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by SeanH

I saw Goody Nurse with the Devil!

But what about Goody Two-Shoes?

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by KingOrfeo

But what about Goody Two-Shoes?

dont you make fun of The Crucible

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by mustang200

NO, McCarthy was a tail gunner in the Marines.

Of course, tailgunners couldn't serve openly in those days, so he had to remain closeted.

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by badbabysitter

or apparently from the inside of a book either

Not that it would have made much difference, in vette's case.

"A book is a mirror: if an ape looks into it an apostle is hardly likely to look out."

-- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by badbabysitter

so he got Algier Hiss right.. and thousands wrong... that makes him a fucking hero?


he screwed over people who never did anything then theoritically have different opinions than him

the implaccapble enemy were American citizens who went to jail because other people said things about them, or they didnt say things about other people


I'm not the one misinformed here... you just choose the listen to Evans and Coulter as gospels when their bullshit has been completely debunked as historical revisionism


rights for me, but not for thee...great attitude

He got Harry Dexter White and Whittaker Chambers right as well as many other.

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by Comshaw

Why is it that the far right conservative and the far left liberal sound strikingly similar? It's like a board game where you can replace key names and phrases thus moving it from one extreme to the other. I think it has to do with a rabid blind faith in their chosen perversion of the facts , selective vision and manufacturing that which they want to believe. I think there is a name for that coined a long time ago: Zealot.

Comshaw

And not coined as an insult, either. So it goes.

[badbabysitter]

Originally Posted by vetteman

He got Harry Dexter White and Whittaker Chambers right as well as many other.

and thousands of Americans that commited no crime


yay! innocent people going to jail!


what a fucking hero!!!!!

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Study the Verona Papers.

Spoiler: Romeo and Juliet both die at the end.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by Voodoo5150

Vetteman, do you believe in our justice system, that people are innocent until proven guilty?

Ask me that question under your real username.