Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive2

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Hammett and others

PF Fox, you keep asking me questions like my opinion on what novels should be provided to state dept employees for reading on their spare time. I am not avoiding your questions, but I really don't have any opinion on many of these questions. I am just trying to document criticisms of McCarthy with actual facts. I just inserted several sentences summarizing some of your criticisms.
I don't think that it is correct to say that McCarthy got Hlavaty fired. It seems likely that McCarthy wanted Hlavaty to answer those questions. A loyal and law-abiding teacher would have answered the questions. I can't be sure of the motives of McCarthy and Hlavaty. So just tried to stick to the facts: Hlavaty gave a VOA broadcast; McCarthy asked questions; Hlavaty refused; Hlavaty lost his job. Let the reader decide for himself. If I made any errors, please let me know. RSchlafly 21:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are misrepesenting me. I did not ask your opinion on novels to be provided to state department employees for reading in their spare time, and anyone reading this discussion knows it. You referred to the writings of Dashiell Hammett and Lillian Hellman as "subversive." I asked you if you thought that these important American writers should be removed from library shelves. For some reason, you are unwilling to answer either yes or no to that very simple question.

Have you even READ Hammett? Hellman?

Many loyal and law-abidig people objected to being asked to name names -- which is what could very well have happened if Hlavaty has not pleaded the fifth. You may not understand the moral objections many people have to the idea of putting friends, relatives, and co-workers in that kind of bind, but I do.

And in the future, if you want to post something to an article that's been closed "as per PF Fox," then please post something I've written -- not your travesty of it. --PF Fox 23:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are asking me if certain commie novels belong in libraries. The context was not ordinary libraries, but a library for state dept employees. I don't really have any opinion about it. It seems trivial to me. My only interest was in collecting notable criticisms of McCarthy, so that the article will be balanced. You blame McCarthy for objecting to these novels, so I put that in the article.
As for Hlavaty, I don't doubt that he had reasons for doing what he did. That is not my concern. I was merely documenting your criticisms of McCarthy.
I don't post what you wrote, because you ramble into irrelevancies and speculations. I just wanted the fact-based criticisms of McCarthy. RSchlafly 00:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe we can find somewhere to work in this material, Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas against the West by Stephen Koch (New York: Free Press, 1994); for example,
"[Willi] Munzenberg created an extensive network of agents, both witting and unwitting, that extended from London to Paris, from Berlin to Barcelona and from Washington to Hollywood. Through these "agents of influence," he was able to shape the West's perception of events like the Sacco-Vanzetti case, which became an emblem of American injustice; the Reichstag fire, which Hitler used (with Stalin's perverse cooperation) as a stepping stone to power, and the creation of the Popular Front against Fascism. Mr. Koch says the left-liberal alliance served mainly to divert the world's attention from the reign of terror that Stalin visited upon his followers. ...Munzenberg's reach extended to the recruiting of Whitaker Chambers by the Russians and to the founding and editing of the "Stalinoid New York daily paper P.M." every word of which in the paper's first months the author reasons, was "approved in advance" by Dashiell Hammett and Lillian Hellman, "either in New York or at Hellman's farm in Westchester County." Munzenberg's network even affected the behavior of Ernest Hemingway, John Dos Passos and Josephine Herbst* in a treacherous incident during the Spanish Civil War.
You are asking me if certain commie novels belong in libraries. The context was not ordinary libraries, but a library for state dept employees. I don't really have any opinion about it. It seems trivial to me. My only interest was in collecting notable criticisms of McCarthy, so that the article will be balanced. You blame McCarthy for objecting to these novels, so I put that in the article.RSchlafly 00:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Book banning is never "trivial." And do explain exactly how THE MALTESE FALCON qualifies as a "commie novel." Or how the works of Theodore White qualify as "commie novels."

Let's assume this applies to Wikipedia's efforts to ban Venona materials. RobS 13:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
As for Hlavaty, I don't doubt that he had reasons for doing what he did. That is not my concern. I was merely documenting your criticisms of McCarthy. I don't post what you wrote, because you ramble into irrelevancies and speculations. I just wanted the fact-based criticisms of McCarthy. RSchlafly 00:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where did I "ramble" and what did I post that was an "irrelevancy?" --PF Fox 03:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's assume this applies to Wikipedia's efforts to ban Venona materials. RobS 13:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

When did Wikipedia try to get Venona materials banned from libraries? --PF Fox 14:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has extensivley censored Venona materials; let me include for the record that I have forced reevaluation of several given premises of an historical nature within Wikipedia, despite not having edited for one and half years. See [1] for example. I quit Wikipedia when I couldn't get an assurance that the concerted harrassment from Political Reserach Associates, which ArbCom is on record as sanctioning, would stop. See this for example [2]; when I used Daniel Patrick Moynihan as source, he was accused of "complicity in mass murder". And this is what they do to dead sources, so I couldn't risk the reputations and libel against living sources. Wikipedia from the top down engages in this type of McCarthyism.
You think it's a joke, huh? Let's take Fred Fisher, former NLG member for example. What do you know about the NLG, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, and WIkipedia's political content gatgekeeper? RobS 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia has extensivley censored Venona materials; let me include for the record that I have forced reevaluation of several given premises of an historical nature within Wikipedia, despite not having edited for one and half years. See [3] for example. I quit Wikipedia when I couldn't get an assurance that the concerted harrassment from Political Reserach Associates, which ArbCom is on record as sanctioning, would stop. See this for example [4]; when I used Daniel Patrick Moynihan as source, he was accused of "complicity in mass murder". And this is what they do to dead sources, so I couldn't risk the reputations and libel against living sources. Wikipedia from the top down engages in this type of McCarthyism. [User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

In other words, no, you have no examples of Wikipedia attempting to ban Venona materials from libraries. I thought as much. And for the record, I really don't care what Wikipedia has done. I have absolutely no stake in Wikipedia, don't generally use it as a source, and have never contributed to it, so telling me all about the wicked things Wikipedia has done doesn't really qualify as much of an argument.

you have no examples of Wikipedia attempting to ban Venona materials from libraries
It's all having access to internet & webservers today. RobS 21:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually there are lots of libaries around that many people still use. They have all these square papery things in them called books and magazines that contain information not available online. Pretty neat, eh?

--PF Fox 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You think it's a joke, huh? Let's take Fred Fisher, former NLG member for example. What do you know about the NLG, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, and WIkipedia's political content gatgekeeper? RobS 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea what these three things have in common. Please tell us about it and how it's germane to McCarthy implying on television that Fred Fisher is a Communist after he'd previously agreed not to do this. --PF Fox 15:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

PF Fox, to answer your questions, The Maltese Falcon is a commie novel in the sense that it was written by a Communist. You ramble into irrelevancies when you ask me my opinion of these commie novels, or declare that book banning is never trivial. No books were banned. Anyone was free to buy any of those commie novels, and read them on their own time. I just want facts about what McCarthy did. If anything in the article is inaccurate, please let me know. RSchlafly 20:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
You've never even read Hammett, have you? In fact, I'll bet you've never read Lillian Hellman (a playwright) or Theodore White (an historian -- not a fiction writer.) You haven't the foggiest idea what these books and plays contain that would or would not make them "commie" and any quick search you do online isn't going to help you much in that regard. --PF Fox 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
PF, Fred Fisher brings us back to the National Lawyers Guild. Let me make a longstory brief: A fomer NLG Vice President who once worked with Philip Agee on CounterSpy magazine, and is now Wikipedia's prominent gatekeeeper of political content had no problem exposing the identities of living CIA Agents when he worked with Agee in the 1970s. Richard Welch, CIA station chief in Athens, was murdered after being identified by Agee's CounterSpy magazine. [5] When I began identifying dead KGB Agents, the same former NLG Vice President targeted, harassed, censored, and slandered me. Now if you can explain, in this post-Cold War era, why an American citizen is proud of the work he has done to undermine the CIA, and fights tooth and nail to hide the identiies of dead KGB operatives, I'd be interested in hearing. Other than that, you've really not brought forward anything new that hasn't been debated to death already for over 50 years now. RobS 21:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

And this means Fred Fisher was a spy?

How? --PF Fox 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

This means McCarthy violated an agreement and Senate rule not to bring the matter up publicly; how is this bit of despicable, loathsome conduct any more uncommon from when Sen. Paul Simon of Illinios leaked Clarance Thomas's FBI file to Nina Totenberg of NPR which contained all the Anita Hill garbage in it? RobS 22:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I hold no brief for Paul Simon, but are you seriously comparing him leaking Clarence Thomas' file to NPR to McCarthy attacking a private citizen on national tv? --PF Fox 22:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes indeed I am comparing the false, defamatory and permanent damage done to Clarance Thomas to Fred Fisher. And Fisher is just a footnote in history compared to a Supreme Court Justice who has served two and half decades now. RobS 22:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Fred Fisher was a private citizen, Rob. That makes a big difference. --PF Fox 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Clarance Thomas likewise was a private citizen. So a totally illegal, unethical, false, defamation and violation of Senate rules is ok and tolerable so long as it's against an upiddy Black who's off the plantation. Yes, now you are making perfect sense. RobS 23:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No, Clarence Thomas was a public figure. --PF Fox 23:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No, both Clarance Thomas and Fred Fisher were obscure lower level govt employees, or Fisher was actually a subcontractor of a firm doing business with the govt which is the same thing.
Seems you need to learn about Sec 230 vs British law. You speak like it's ok to spew any garbage simply because you're an American citizen, whereas what you post on the internet here in the US is a Constitutionally protected right, in Canada or Great Britain, where it can be read, it may actually be a crime. Just cause a person is a public figure does not mean you have the right to spew hatred and defame them in most countries outside the US, and it is a prosecutable offense. Last week for example, Britney Spears began action in London for defamatory crap written about her while in rehab here in the US. So no, you're not free to spew garbage and defamation just because a person is a public figure. RobS 00:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

As an American I can criticize a public figure freely. That is how the constitution has been interpreted for years. Private citizens, however, are treated differently.

Clarence Thomas was a nominee for the Supreme Court. Fred Fisher was a young attorney working for a Boston Law firm. It's a pity you can't recognize the difference. Most people can. --PF Fox 03:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

You specifically have answered your own question: you appear to be justifying a flagrant violation of Senate rules with the specific intent to slander & defame a person. In the case of Fisher, as Roger pointed out McCarthy was responding to a question in the first place (took the bait, so to speak), and the Army-McCarthy hearing was not concocted with the specific intent to defame Fisher.
I think many of us have conceeded McCarthy was heavy-handed and excessive, yet you are in a curious place right now--on the one hand you decry "McCarthyism" and "McCarthyite tactics"; on the other hand you have plainly stated you have no problem with McCarthyite tactics when in the service of what is probably your pet causes. There is nothing preventing you from holding a dicotomy of positions like this, but it does absolutley ZERO to gain credibility for your complaints of unfairness. RobS 13:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said the Army-McCarthy hearing was "concocted with the specific intent to defame Fisher." Are you truly unable to argue a point without ascribing things to people they never said?

You seem absolutely intent on ignoring how "McCarthyism" is defined. Exactly how did that leak qualify as "personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminte accusations esp. on the basis of unsubstantiated chrages?" --PF Fox 12:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

The Anita Hill hearings certainly were concocted with the specific intent to defame Clarance Thomas, and you seem to have no outrage for the blatant McCarthyism surounding that event. RobS 14:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
PF Fox, no one cares whether I have read Hammett. He could be the best commie novelist in the world, or the worst. It makes no difference for the purpose of this article. Also, the article does not say that Fisher was a spy. RSchlafly 22:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Whether you actually read Hammett determines how seriously anyone is going to take you when they hear you describe his books as "commie novels." And if Hammett having communist sympathies makes his detective novels "commie novels," then that quintessential American icon, the hardboiled private eye immortalized by Humphrey Bogart is also "commie" because Hammett pretty much invented it. --PF Fox 22:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, your opinion is noted. RSchlafly 23:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Misinformation in McCarthy article

Rschlafly, what you have posted as a definition of McCarthy is flatly untrue and not the way the term is defined in common usage.

Doesn't that bother you at all? --PF Fox 03:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that it is false. But show me some common usage, and maybe you can prove me wrong. I just found this, from a leftist cartoonist a week ago. "During the 1950s, a defining characteristic of McCarthyism was to deprive actors of work in Hollywood to punish them for political views expressed elsewhere." [6] If this is really common usage, then I'd like a definition to cover it, but it is a little confusing to explain. McCarthy didn't deprive any actors of work. How would you explain it? RSchlafly 04:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Here's another one, "November 15, 1946 Joseph McCarthy's HUAC interrogates astronomer Harlow Shapley" [7] I don't understand how the people who perpetrate this kinda fruad expect to gain anything using such naked lies. RobS 11:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Try not to become enraged or embittered. There is a lot of misinformation out there. It has only been a couple of centuries that freedom of speech has been in existence. And the Internet's fair-haired child (the Worldwide Web) only became popular around 15 years ago. Things take time. See Paradigm shift. --Ed Poor 12:04, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
According to Wikipedia, gay bashing [8] is a form of McCarthyism. Truth is, passing gas in a crowded elevator is McCarthyism, too. It's an attack term that can be remolded to denigrate whatever we don't like at any moment in time. RobS 12:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes. Some people use the term as just a meaningless leftist smear term. Most usage doesn't seem to have much to do with McCarthy. The article should explain this. RSchlafly 12:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Terms like McCarthyism and pollyanna and homophobic are used unthinkingly - or as deliberate propaganda. A good encyclopedia would use plain English instead. --Ed Poor 12:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
All I am saying is that the article should describe how the term McCarthyism is popularly used today, and how the term relates to McCarthy. If it is primarily used as an unthinking propaganda term that bears little relation to McCarthy, then the article should say so. RSchlafly 13:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Not to sidetack this discussion, but McCarthy must've known of Ray Cohn homosexuality, as Hitler knew of Enrst Rohm's homosexuality. In both instances, McCarthy & Hitler were extremely tolerant toward close associates who were gay. Today however, "homophobia" becomes a form of "McCarthyism" or "fascistic tendencies". This is junk I object to. RobS 13:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly, “McCarthyism” is used to the describe the Hollywood blacklist and the HUAC hearings even though McCarthy was not personally involved in these matters in the same manner that “Maverick” is used to describe independent individuals, even though they are NOT in fact, unbranded cattle belonging to a 19th century Texas rancher named “Maverick” and “boycott” is used to describe “a concerted effort to have dealings with a business or individual” even though the business and individual in question are NOT the 19th century Irish land agent whose name coined the term. What do you find confusing about this?

Here's another one, "November 15, 1946 Joseph McCarthy's HUAC interrogates astronomer Harlow Shapley" [9] I don't understand how the people who perpetrate this kinda fruad expect to gain anything using such naked lies. RobS 11:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

How is the fact that some website got a piece of history wrong relevant here?

According to Wikipedia, gay bashing [10] is a form of McCarthyism. Truth is, passing gas in a crowded elevator is McCarthyism, too. It's an attack term that can be remolded to denigrate whatever we don't like at any moment in time. RobS 12:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some people misuse the term McCarthyism does not render it invalid as a term, and does not mean that it’s always used “unthinkingly.” “Communism” is also a term that’s frequently applied carelessly and without thought. I've seen it thrown at people for advocating the integration of public schools and laws against child labor. That doesn’t make Communism any less real or the word “Communism” any less valid when applied to a political belief that advocates the abolition of private property. --PF Fox 14:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some people misuse the term McCarthyism does not render it invalid
Thank you. Recently someone asked that at Talk:Liberal#inherent conjuctures of its fluid reasoning; now we have good illustration. RobS 14:38, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

You're not making sense here. Does the fact that the term "Communism" is sometimes misused by people who apply it to anyone who supports unions, racial integration, and child labor laws render the term "Communism" itself invalid?

And I'd really appreciate answers to the numerous other questions I've asked and that you've ignored. I try to make a point of answering your questions. Why not return the courtesy and answer mine?

--PF Fox 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

OK. Specifically here--the term "McCarthyism" means whatever you'd like it to mean. For example, when Hillary Clinton voted for the War, her anti-war critics were McCarthyites. Now that she's backtracking and joining the anti-war movement, her critics outside the anti-war movement likewise are McCarthyites. It's all so very simple to see and understand. RobS 15:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll take this a "no." You have no intention of answering my questions. Why not? What are you afraid of?

No, "McCarthyism" does not "mean whatever" I or anyone else would like it to mean, any more than "Communism" means what I or anyone else would like it to mean. "McCarthyism" does not mean merely expressing disagreement with someone. Do I really need to post the dictionary definition of McCarthyism AGAIN? --PF Fox 11:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Basis of objections to McCarthy's investigations

McCarthy has been widely criticized for his aggressive use of legislative investigatory powers to probe the Communist sympathies of various government officials.

This sentence is, at best, unclear. What was being criticized?

  1. How aggressive he was?
  2. His probing of "Communist sympathies"?

Or that he was using the probe for self-aggrandizement?

Or because the critics themselves (1) sympathized with Communism and (2) objected to anyone stopping Communist sympathizers from aiding the Soviet government? --Ed Poor 13:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

WP McCarthy entry

Let's examine these from the WP McCarthy entry:

  • Solomon Adler Apparently never accused of anything by McCarthy; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity.[11]
  • Cedric Belfrage Questioned by McCarthy in a closed subcommittee session but apparently never accused of anything; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity. [12]
  • T.A. Bisson apparently only mentioned in passing by McCarthy; evidence from Venona indicates Soviet espionage activity. [13]
  • Lauchlan Currie briefly mentioned by McCarthy in 1951; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity. [14]
  • Leonard Mins Questioned by Roy Cohn at the Army Signal Corp hearings but apparently never accused of anything; evidence from Venona indicates Soviet espionage activity.[15]

All of this adds weight to what has been outlined here: (1) that McCarthy was feed bogus inforamtion and dead-end files from the FBI & Hoover; (2) McCarthy was unaware he was being used by FBI & Hoover as such. RobS 14:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS, stop using Wikipedia to defend your remarks. I have analyzed those comments and they are WRONG. McCarthy had long ago demonstrated he was right about these people being loyalty and/ or security risks. Plus, there's lots more in the Executive Session transcripts. In the meantime, forget about that Wikipedia garbage. Scorpio 11:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. RobS 12:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
LOL. Sorry Rob, I thought you were being critical of Senator McCarthy but I realize that you were making a different point. Even so, Wikipedia is so screwed up that I wouldn't take anything from that article as gospel. That article in WP is under strict control by the kooky Left. After we list the easy to get names that can be found in the Buckley book and other places, the real tiring work is going through the Executive Session transcripts that are loaded with lots of other names. This is a long term task. As I mentioned, I look forward to working with you. Scorpio 22:45, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Requested edits

U.S. Judges may be ambiguous; it sound like it refers to US Federal judges, whereas McCarthy was a State circuit judge. RobS 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

We're at the magic 57 number right now Category:KGB Agents and Sources; I have about 250 more to go. RobS 01:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


Bias

In case no one noticed, this article is still rife with bias. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 22:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you have examples? I added a criticism section that includes some of the major criticisms. What do you want to see? Where is the bias? RSchlafly 02:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Decency quote

No mention of the quote that brought an end to McCarthy's committee? "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" JohnSmith 17:45, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

The incident is mentioned, saying: McCarthy also had a confrontation with Boston attorney Joseph Welch in televised hearings. Welch demanded that McCarthy name someone who had belonged to a Communist front organization, and then complained that it was indecent to do so. RSchlafly 18:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafley, your above characterization of the "have you no decency" speech is the kind of lie children tell when they imagine they're being clever. In fact -- as you know -- what prompted the famous "have you no decency" from Welch was the fact that McCarthy had attacked a young associate of Welch's that McCarthy had earlier promised not to attack.
Personal remark removed --PF Fox 23:16, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
PF Fox, I notice that you like to make unsupported personal attacks, but what you say is just not true. Welch did not complain of McCarthy breaking any promise. McCarthy said, But in view of Mr. Welch's request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist Party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, incidentally, to do the work on this Committee, who has been, for a number of years, a member of an organization which is named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party, an organization which always springs to the defense of anyone who dares to expose Communists. Knowing that, Mr. Welch, I just felt that I had a duty to respond to your urgent request that "before sundown," when we know of anyone serving the Communist cause we let the agency know. If you find any factual error, please let us know. I don't see anything wrong with what McCarthy did in this incident, but I described it factually anyway as others use it in criticisms of McCarthy. RSchlafly 00:44, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Later, Welch says: "Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this further with you. You have sat within six feet of me and could ask -- could have asked me about Fred Fisher. You have seen fit to bring it out". So Welch is suggesting that Fisher had not been discussed earlier. Welch was not complaining about a broken promise. RSchlafly 01:22, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

The fact that McCarthy was reneging on a promise was acknowledged by Roy Cohn himself, who passed McCarthy a frantic note about it during the encounter, prompting McCarthy's comment, “I know Mr. Cohn would rather not have me go it." Yes, both Welch and McCarthy are implying that Fisher had not been discussed earlier, but in fact, he had been, and anyone who has actually researched this famous encounter knows it.

I don't doubt for one moment that you "don't see anything wrong" with McCarthy attempting to wreck the career of a young associate of Welch. You seem to like McCarthyism, and you apparently find appealing the idea of firing people and smearing Americans as disloyal because you dislike their politics. Most Americans who watched that exchange, however, were revolted at the sheer stupidity and malice of McCarthy's actions. --PF Fox 13:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

I am interested in documented facts. I let the ready decide whether McCarthy did anything wrong. McCarthy did not attempt to wreck the Fisher's career. What you are now saying is that Welch lied about the Fisher situation, and that Welch's real complaint was something other than what he said. Why did Welch implying that Fisher had not been discussed earlier, if he had been? RSchlafly 15:04, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Nonsense, you're not interested in facts. You're interested in rehabilitating McCarthyism, and like your hero McCarthy, you're perfectly willing to misrepresent, lie, and mislead in the course of doing it. If Welch "lied about the Fisher situation," then so did Joseph McCarthy, who started out by implying the Fisher had not been discussed. What happened, RSchlafley, is that McCarthy, a politician who relied heavily on theater came up against Welch, a more savvy politician who was better at theater. As a result, McCarthy was shown up for the blustering bully that he was.
Are you and your brother honestly unaware of how much you reveal about your political agenda when you soft-pedal the crimes of thugs like Joseph McCarthy and Augusto Pinochet? --PF Fox 16:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
If McCarthy committed any crimes, show me the proof and I'll put it in the article. I don't know that McCarthy lied. Maybe he was just giving Welch the benefit of the doubt by saying that Welch may not have known about Fisher's commie connections. At any rate, Welch soon admitted to knowing, so no one was misled. You could be right that Welch was a more savvy politician. I didn't have anything to do with the Pinochet article. RSchlafly 19:04, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Proposed additions to McCarthy article

RSchlafly, I would like to add more people to the list who McCarthy correctly identified as security and loyalty risks, plus add the sources for this info.

I would also like to add info regarding his history prior to entering the Senate.

I would also like to create separate pages for the people Senator McCarthy correctly identified and also to add to the pages that all ready exist. I would prefer not to start that until I have had the ability to add or enhance their names to the McCarthy article.

All of this information is completely positive towards the Senator since I am also in the process of writing a book regarding his life and work in the Senate.

Lastly, I ask you for limited ability to be able to unlock and lock this this topic to prevent vandalism. Scorpio 11:43, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Let's see the list. RobS 12:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Unlocking the article is okay with me. It is in good shape, and vandalism can be reverted. RSchlafly 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Guys, I added the info to the article. I hope that's OK. I added info to the section, "VENONA files & Other Security/Loyalty Risks". If you don't like my work, feel free to revert. Thank you. Scorpio 21:17, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
No. You are not confusing known cases involved in Soviet espionage with security risks. Please place these Security risks separately from the Venona cases. Thank you. RobS 21:47, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
OK, Rob, no problem. But I noticed you removed the Buckley reference. That was not necessary and is a good source. I'll work on creating a separate section hopefully tomorrow. Scorpio 21:54, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
I reverted it all, sorry. But it all can go back in, I would just suggest creating a new subhead beneath Venona entitled ==Known security risks==. Also, I will probably also be doing some editing dealing with what is corroborated from Soviet Archives (Gorsky Memo). But I can wait til you have most in. The Graze brothers will probably be the first we need to look at closely. RobS 21:59, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, sounds good. I look forward to working with you. There is a lot of work to be done considering we have to create articles for each one of these security/loyalty risk names as well. Scorpio 22:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The Gorsky Memo has engender many different citation formats on many different internet sites over the past 2 years; I have used John Earl Haynes cite up til now for most of my work, however I found a message in Wikipeida from Svetlana Chervonnaya of the Department of Domestic Policy Studies at the Insitute of USA and Canada in the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow who gave this form,

  • Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Anatoly_Gorsky"

which is available at Anatoly Gorsky. I'm not ready to go back and fix a couple hundred times I've used it, but I suggest interested editors begin using this format henceforward. Thank you. RobS 22:36, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, are talking about a suitable format for each of the security/loyalty names? If so, I would think a simple biography would work, much like the Anatoly Gorsky article you mentioned. Does that sound right? Scorpio 22:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, I hope you don't mind but I changed the title of that section to "Known security/loyalty risks", since these people could be one or both. Scorpio 23:12, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

UPDATE: 6/17/07

Anyone who has checked this article recently will have noticed a great many additions, corrections, and minor changes. From what I have been able to find on the internet, this article now discusses in detail more about Senator McCarthy's cases than any other article available online. God willing and time allowing, this article is evolving into what will become the most detailed article on the subject of Senator McCarthy and related issues on the internet. It now stands as the most accurate and most unbiased source of Senator McCarthy the online community has ever seen. Certainly there is a great deal of background info that needs to be added but in due course, we will be able to do what other online "encyclopedias" have failed to do, and that is, to give an honest and fair accounting of the life and achievements of Joseph McCarthy. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make a valuable contribution to Conservapedia. Scorpio 23:06, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy alcoholism allegation issue

Zapatista, regarding this statement you added:

Friends assert that McCarthy had a history of alcohol abuse, a disease which may have led to his Hepatitis and physical decline.

Although I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the alcoholism assertion, do you have a source of a friend that states that he had a drinking problem? I realize that his detractors have made this accusation but as we all know, his detractors have not only been wrong about most McCarthy issues but they have also purposely created lies about Senator McCarthy. Would you kindly provide a citation? I will add a "citation" tag to the comment until we clear this up. Thank you. Scorpio 17:32, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Hepatitis is usually caused by a virus, and not alcoholism. I don't think that the article should say that alcohol was related to his death unless there is some medical evidence of that. RSchlafly 11:36, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
RSchlafly, I agree. I think it's just best to stick to what has been reported in his cause of death. I didn't want to undo Zapatista's work without giving him an opportunity to back himself up but, with your OK, I'll go ahead and make the change. Best Regards. Scorpio 17:04, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

U.S. News & World Report

  • June 7, 1957

Is this date correct? Probably should be 1954, maybe earlier. RobS 00:11, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, according to the source, it says, "1957". The article was written after McCarthy's condemnation and was critical of the the second count. The article was mentioned here. Let me know what you think. Regards. Scorpio 10:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Executive Session transcripts

Ok, that's right, I misread the context. Also, The Real McCarthy Record gives some big numbers, something like of 600 called to testify, 82 invoked the Fifth, etc., and breaks it down between those invoking the Fifth in Executive Session and those in Public Session, etc. Are these overall figures in the article? And if not, perhaps we can integrate them somewhere in a summary intro subsection. What do you think? RobS 11:06, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, Drummey's article is brilliant. Oddly enough, I have spoken to James Drummey over the phone a few months ago. He stands by all his numbers but I told him the biggest problem with his article is that it fails to give footnotes and sources. He said he realized that too late and that all his material is now stored away in boxes and getting that info together would be too big a job.
The numbers to which he refers are in the Executive Sessions transcripts and in the Public Session transcripts. So, in answer to your question, no, these numbers don't apppear in our article as it stands. This is a job that has to be done in order to give a full picture of all the people that McCarthy uncovered. I have been dreading doing it but will occasionly read at random some of the Executive Session proceedings just for a few laughs. Seriously, it's funny reading all the times that people appear before the Committee and take the Fifth. McCarthy and his Committee were always polite and gave the witness every opportunity to defend themselves and seek legal counsel.
The biggest problem is getting our hands on the Public Sessions. I called the GPO and they told me that they don't have PDF files of the Public Sessions like they do of the Executive Sessions. Even so, the Executive Session PDF's are huge. For example, Volume 1 is 950 pages!! That's a lot of reading. However, we could use Drummey's info (he gave me the OK to use his article in whatever manner I needed) as part of a small summary in our article here until we can go through all the Executive files ourselves and pull out the names of these security risks. It's amazing that someone has yet to have done anything like this. As I mentioned on this Discussion page, between your work and my work, this article now stands as the most detailed accounting of McCarthy's cases on the internet. And quite possibly, in any book as well. And, we're still not done!! By the time we're finished, this article will become a source worthy of being used by authors and defenders of McCarthy all over the world. The next time Ann Coulter wants to defend McCarthy, this could easily be her best source.
We can pretty much get what we need from the 5 volumes of Executive Sessions to which we have access. I was planning to start going through the Executive Sessions after I finished adding all the names from Buckley's book. Depending on how much time you have available to do this, maybe we can split up the Executive Session volumes between the two of us. We can note the name of the witness, where he/she works or worked, whether the witness took the Fifth or admitted being a security risk or a Communist or whatever, etc. If they appeared in Executive Session and were a clear security risk, then I'm sure they appeared in Public Session as well. I was disappointed that General Zwicker's testimony was not in the Executive Session PDF files. Apparently he shows up in the Public Session.
So, please let me know your thoughts on handling the Executive Session info and whether you you have time to go through any of the volumes. Otherwise, I'll plug away at it and eventually we'll get all the info in the article. As you noticed, I took a break from adding names to try and fill out the article a bit, edit some of the existing info, and create some consistency in the formatting of the article. While the article covers McCarthy's life and work a bit better, it's still far from being as detailed as you and I would like to see it. On a side note: One thing that annoys me is how if you Google "Joseph McCarthy", Conservapedia doesn't show up yet all these other useless websites show up instead. Any idea how we can get this website listed in Google? Please let me know about that and your available time regarding the Executive Session transcripts. Best Regards. Scorpio 17:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
EDIT: Rob, I noticed that in the VENONA section, some of Drummey's numbers are used. It's not a full explanation but some reference is made to those numbers. My concern is that those numbers are mixed in with VENONA and I don't think they correspond to each other. I think we should create a separate temporary section with those figures, at least until we go through the Executive Sessions and get the exact specifics. What do you think? Scorpio 18:29, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Quick response, yes, some good ideas. As to the Drummey/Venona stuff, it reads,
  • Of the 83 persons pleading the fifth ammendment, several have been identified by NSA and FBI as agents of the Soviet Union in the Venona project involved in espionage.
While this may qualify as Original Research per Wikipedia, I have carefully examined it and it is all provable by clicking the external links to the Executive Session transcripts.
Now, as to the dealing with the transcripts, once you become familiar with the Table of Contents and structure, you can divide it up into relevent portions. I have read all the material dealing with Venona subjects, and most are available right here on this mainspace, including the actual page numbers. There may be a few others, and I can provide them if necessary (Elizabeth Bentley for example, also gave testimony. And the testimony dealing with J. Robert Oppenheimer I think is available on the Oppie page (Corliss Lamont's testimony). I really have not read much outside of persons who were not identified in Venona.
For yourself, that may be one place to begin, reading persons identified in Venona who gave testimony in Executive Session. I have always really been more invovled and interested in the policy issues in question. One name I have not included on this list is William Henry Taylor; this may be an excellant sttarting point, because Taylor did not plead the Fifth, and was willing to testify about some of Harry Dexter White's activities in the Div. of Monetary Affairs. Fascinating reading, and I have been trying to concentrate on this avenue of pursuit for two or three years now. Perhaps if you are going to begin the transcripts, you may wish to look at that one first, and the page number is available from William Henry Taylor mainspace. This could be an excellent starting point.
Let me just state for full disclosure, I'm not involved in this with an intent to prove McCarthy right or wrong; I am interested in Comintern activities from 1919 onwards, worldwide. The US end of it is just a small fraction of the larger story. RobS 18:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, thanks for the info. Either way this is handled, it's still a long road to document everything here and even longer since we are looking past the McCarthy aspect of this subject. I look forward to continued success on all these issues. If I can be of help on anything else, please let me know. Also, any thoughts on how to score Conservapedia higher on Google? Scorpio 19:46, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
On the Google, stuff, I'd have to ask the other Sysops, that's outside my area of expertise. As to the idea of making CP your one stop shopping for everything McCarthy, I hadn't thought about that til you brought it up, but yes, it is true, we have virtually all the Haynes, Klehr, Firsov, Vasilliev (Gorsky memo), Buckley, and Bozell material, plus original source, plus others, all on one page. It's true, I don't know anywhere else that has all that. RobS 21:17, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, I have a feeling that by the time we're done, our work is going to get national recognition (not that is my only motivation) by both conservatives and liberals. I think when everything is ready we should even talk to RSchlafly about sending out press releases regarding the fact that not only our McCarthy article is the most revealing but also all aspects of exposing Communist infiltration of the U.S. govt. And, I'll contact RSchlafly as well and see if he has any thoughts on the Google matter. Scorpio 11:23, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
EDIT: I just checked and found that the McCarthy article is now placing number 25 in the search listings on Google. This is an improvement but there's no reason why we shouldn't be placing near Wiki at the least. Scorpio 11:42, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Just for the record, if you Google "Venona", 3 of the top 8, including the top 2 results beating the NSA, PBS, and Amazon, were written by me. RobS 22:47, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Venona rewrite

I'm going to rewrite and clarify some of the passages dealing with Venona materials. RobS 14:31, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Ok, excellent. I noticed you added some additional sources to the "External links" section, which is great. I have been curious about the "Joseph McCarthy FBI FOIA File" for some time. Can you quickly summarize the essential aspects of that FBI info and how it can be used best in this article? Thank you. Scorpio 15:32, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

<--McCarthy FOIA file: I've skimmed it superficially, it largely consists of press reports and newswire clippings about McCarthy, and communications between McCarthy & FBI on his personal travel security, as far as I've been able to glean from it. RobS 17:47, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, regarding this paragraph:
"Three days later, at Wheeling West Virginia, McCarthy is said to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." The famous "List", as it has become to be known, has always engendered much controversy. The figure McCarthy used of 205 appears to have come from an oral briefing with Hoover regarding espionage suspects the FBI was then investigating."
The reason I point this paragraph out is because in the Buckley book, pages 41-61, an investigation was undertaken to determine whether McCarthy said 57 or 205 in the oral part of the speech. The conclusion reached was that while in his written notes it mentioned the 200+, in his actual speech he addressed the 57 upon which he had actual detailed info. I would recommend changing the paragraph to make this clear. Check out the footnotes on the quote in the article. [1][2][3][4] Scorpio 15:32, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

<---

Rob, oddly enough, the Wiki article actually mentions the Byrnes letter. I emailed you a partial transcript of the Feb. 20, 1950 speech by McCarthy. This addresses the numbers issue nicely. Scorpio 13:25, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

That what was known at the time in 1950, and the time of Drummey's writing in 1987, before declassification in 1995 of the FBI Memo Belmont to Boardman, November 26 1957, Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45. The effort was to impugn McCarthy's credibility over the number 205. We know now Hoover must have told McCarthy in an oral briefing something to the effect of "we know there's 205 KGB operatives working for the Soviet Union." McCarthy then subsequently leaked publicly (whether intentionally or not is unknown) the figure 205, from what McCarthy regarded as a reliable source. The confusion lies in the fact the 205 were actually identified by true name identity and known to the FBI as involved in espionage, they were not simply security risks. The FBI was looking to identify the remainder of 349 - 205 = 144 security risks. The Lee List, or "108 List" as it is also called, were prime suspects. No action had been taken on removing any further names from the Lee List since 1947 (as the cite to Peurifoy[16] states; M.Stanton Evans also refers to it [17]). The lack of prosecutions in the Amerasia case created suspiscions of coverup in the Truman Administration. RobS 13:56, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
This is further corroborated by Sen. Margaret Chase Smith's Declaration of Conscience.


there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia through key officials of the Democratic administration. There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges. [5]

RobS 14:14, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, great stuff. I loved the article by M.Stanton Evans. I think that in order to avoid making this article into a "monster article", put as much stuff into it that connect to McCarthy and add footnotes and references that bolster his case and that of subversion in govt. Then, create additional articles that cover this info in greater detail. All this other info you've mentioned is fantastic and very helpful to backing not only McCarthy but to the very essence of subversion in the U.S. govt. The only thing that needs editing at this point is the 205 number issue. It would be great if you could re-write that so that it doesn't come off as though McCarthy was switching numbers around to suit his situation. If you don't mind me suggesting this as an edit:

Instead of this:

McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." The famous "List", as it has come to be known, has always engendered much controversy. The figure of 205 appears...

Maybe this:

McCarthy had also discussed the figure of 205 cases — a list of names that was made known to Secretary of State Byrnes as being security risks. The figure of 205 appears..."

Let me know what you think. Thanks. Scorpio 14:42, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

But that still misses the point on the meaning of the number 205. Critics have always used McCarthy's reference to 205 to discredit him. The 205 were never security risks, the were known KGB agents.
When McCarthy used the number, it's unclear if he leaked the number inadvertantly, or understood that the FBI had the knowledge and identities of 205 KGB agents, which they did in February of 1950. All McCarthy knew was what Hoover told him, that the FBI not only had solid evidence on hundreds of KGB spies, they were seeking to identify a few hundred more. RobS 14:57, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, that's cool, I agree with you. Then if I can make the suggestion for you to simply edit that part to say exactly what you just said. As it reads now, it sounds as if McCarthy might have been just throwing numbers around. In fact, McCarthy did make the claim of 205 cases, just not in the format that you quoted. That format has come from McCarthy's detractors who used that line to attack him by suggesting his numbers changed all the time with no basis in fact. You and I know you don't mean to say that but another reader might get the impression that this sentence was actually made by McCarthy. What do you think? Scorpio 15:21, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm gonna give it all a proof read tonite probably, and work on integrating the four main sources I discussed in the email. What I'll probably do is try and post a chronological narative in the CPUSA entry (or maybe somewhere else), so as not to upset and confuse what we have here so far. Then if we can get a good flow of events in a narrative of a few paragraphs, we can improve this page, too.

We really are close to getting probably the most complete, if not definitive account of the period from 1946 to 1954 that I'm aware of, available anywhere on the internet. RobS 16:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, Amen to that, bro!! :) Scorpio 17:12, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Here's the basic idea, with sourcing
We just need to cut out any redundancy (if any) and inprove the flow (without damagiing context). I don't wish to bring any extraneous material, yet. Only the M. Stanton Evans cite might have something to add. RobS 17:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, that's a great article. Oddly enough, it's the first time I read it. I love the Executive Session stuff. The liberals have no idea what they gave us when they released those documents. I doubt the clowns have even bothered to read what's in them. They are just as or even more revealing than Venona. Scorpio 10:57, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I was hoping you would have had a chance to clarify the 205 number issue. The only thing that needs adjustment at this point is merely making reference to the 205 number and removing the quote that McCarthy detractors use against him. As it stands right now, it conflicts with the 57 number quote just above. If you don't have a chance to do it, and if you wouldn't mind, let me give it a shot. If you don't like my edit, feel free to revert or change it to something that that you would prefer. Please let me know. Thank you. Scorpio 12:35, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Given the contrast between WP's entry and CP's, I'd like to leave it sit. WP says point blank this is what McCarthy said in Wheeling, CP gives an entirely different account of the event. And I haven't had time to investigate the source of the claim used here. So we need a response to WP's claim complete with weasel terms "some people say", etc.
The major point remains, it's a moot point. And reengaging the discussion from nearly 60 years ago on the same terms is exactly what McCarthy critics want. What is needed, is historical context, and clarification of the confusion, which Venona declassification provided.
Have you ever read this memo from 9 Feb 1950, Failure of the JAEIC To Receive Counter Espionage Information having Positive Intelligence Value," 9 February 1950, paragraph 3,
  • The only real assurance we have of getting the information at present seems to be as a result of the investigations of a Congressional Committee..." RobS 13:15, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, I urge you to not give WP a second in consideration as a source. Their requirements regarding information is not truth, it's verifiability. There is a huge difference between WP and CP and the way we look at info. That means that all those anti-McCarthy books can claim lies and distortions and since they have been published, they are valid. That's right, I'm not kidding. Please stay away from WP as a source. They will guide you down the wrong path. I have quoted to you the Buckley book, McCarthy's speech, Drummey's article, and a copy of the speech here, and I've given you links to AIM backing up the 57 number. I've provided you all the sources needed to make this issue clear and you told me that you would look it over in a night and make the change. Now you're telling me you're going to "sit" on it. Come on, man. I've put a lot of time and energy into the article as you have done as well and I certainly don't want to let WP be the guiding light of this article considering their guidelines. I ask you again to please simply remove that quote because it is inaccurate. Every single honest and dependable source invalidates that quote. All I ask is that you please remove the quote but feel free to retain the 205 or 206 number as you accurately stated. I also agree that we can add some kind of argument that the anti-McCarthy people have been inaccurately using that quote. Feel free to do it. But leaving that quote as is not only makes us look stupid considering the 57 number just above that statement, but it also looks like we are buying into that inaccurate quote.
I apologize if I'm coming across a bit too forward today but this is really a sore issue for me because the left-wingers have been using that quote to unfairly attack McCarthy for almost 60 years (If you email me, I'll tell you exactly why I'm so upset about this issue). This is the same exact line the Communist Party has been telling people!! The last thing I want to see is that distorted lie as fact on CP. We have an obligation to young and older conservatives to post the truth here and that quote is hurting that effort. I'm begging you at this point to do me the favor and remove it until you can figure out a way to quote it as a left-wing distortion. Please. Scorpio 14:08, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
It is not an issue of taking sides or forcing a partisan confrontation on moot arguments from well over half a century ago -- it is an issue of accurately reporting historical facts. We now know where the figure 205 came from which McCarthy is reported to have used, and some journalists reproduced in print. The 205 figure, by 1957 having grown to 206, was declassified in 1995. Now we know the source of the figure. Whether McCarthy understood that it was 205 known espionage agents, or 205 "known communist" party members remains somewhat of a question. But recycling, and rehashing, which anti-McCarthy author 50+ years ago was right or wrong, and which pro-McCarthy author 50+ years ago was right or wrong, is not only pointless, and meaningless, it is the only argument liberals and commies have remaining to refute Venona evidence. RobS 14:45, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, I agree with you. I'm not arguing that McCarthy didn't use the 205 figure in his evidence; only that the quote itself is inaccurate. The people that oppose our efforts to bring out the truth are still quoting that line to this very day. WP does not care about new info showing that McCarthy's detractors were either ignorant or liars. WP is only interested in how many authors repeat the same lie. Again, as absurd as that sounds, that really is the policy of WP. Why you are leaving an inaccurate quote to sit there when we have solid proof that McCarthy did not make that that statement, is confusing to me. If you want to quote the Communist Party line or one of the many anti-McCarthy books, yes, you have yourself a quote that they used wittingly or unwittingly to attack McCarthy. But that line was never made by McCarthy. It's a complete lie. I have given you the proof so that's why I'm asking you to look at the proof and change that paragraph to make the point you really are trying to make, and that is, McCarthy was right when he talked about the 205 number. And, if you really want to quote McCarthy, this is actually what he said:
"The letter deals with the first group of 3,000 which was screened. The President--and I think wisely so--set up a board to screen the employees who were coming to the State Department from the various war agencies of the War Department. There were thousands of unusual characters in some of those war agencies. Former Secretary Byrnes in his letter, which is reproduced in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, says this:
Pursuant to Executive order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred to the Department of state from various war agencies such as the OSS, FEA, OWI, OIAA, and so forth. Of these 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommendation against permanent employment has been made in 285 cases by the screening committee to which you refer in your letter.
In other words, former Secretary Byrnes said that 285 of those men are unsafe risks. He goes on to say that of this number only 79 have been removed. Of the 57 I mentioned some are from this group of 205, and some are from subsequent groups which have been screened but not discharged. -- MAJOR SPEECHES AND DEBATES OF SENATOR JOE McCARTHY, DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE 1950-1951.
So, if you want to put in a quote, there you go. But obviously, the existing quote is not only wrong but leaving it in place would confuse any reader who happened upon this article right now. Please do me a favor and either edit it out or replace it with the accurate quote above. Scorpio 15:21, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree with RobS, here. The 205/6 figure should stand (and will) as it is the more accurate. Begging Rob is no way to present the truth due to some personal consideration. Certainly doing so at other places would earn you pages of abuse, you know. And, I must say, I am a bit uneasy with just two editors "bragaining" their way through what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a personal opinion piece. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
TK, actually that is not the most accurate account. The newspapers had printed the type written account that were handed out beforehand but not prepared by McCarthy. If you review the links that I posted you will discover that to be true. If you read the Buckley book you would know that Buckley confirms the 57 figure. I have posted plenty of info that cofirms what I have said, including what was said on the Senate floor. I don't know if you have actually read any of these references. Can you confirm this? And I think Rob can speak for himself. If Rob wants to go ahead and for whatever reason use Wikipedia as a source, that's fine. I was only trying to establish consistency in the article. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia uses verifiability and not truth as a basis for all of its' articles, it's really not the best source. As for working on this article, I've spent countless hours basically adding info that has been known for almost 60 years that up until now no one has bothered to post online. This is not a "personal opinion piece" as you claim. I take offense to being told that in view of the fact that everything has a footnote and is well documented. Rob has done some excellent work on the article as well. His work is not personal opinion work either. He has spent a great deal of time and energy to improve this article and I strongly defend his work as unbiased and an excellent exercise in encyclopedic scholarship. You may not appreciate the work we have been doing here but I'm sure students of Senator McCarthy would appreciate it. However, if you really think that my work is a "personal opinion piece", I will revert all of my contributions to this article right away. I don't appreciate being told that my work is essentially garbage. Until you can clarify that, I will cease all my work and notify Mr. Schlafly of the situation. I would appreciate it if you would please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your time. Scorpio 22:03, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
57 or 205 is entirely moot, unless you are arguing the anti-McCarthy position. Whatever number McCarthy used, he was still only refering to security risks and party members, not spies.
We know now that the 205 number actually really did refer to spies, not security risks or party members. Apparantly, McCarthy accidentily leaked that number, and whether he knew from Hoover that it was the number of spies the FBI knew of or not is uncertain. But the bottomline is, rehashing old movies like The Manchurian Candidate only plays the game McCarthy and Ann Coulter's critics want to play, i.e. trash McCarthy all over again based upon outdated sources. But we know now the entire framework of issues to be debated has changed. RobS 22:51, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, Rob, I know and I agree. I'm in no way disputing what you are saying. I've said that repeatedly. My only concern was with the quote, not the information. You're absolutely right that McCarthy pointed to 205 cases. I gave you the citation above from the Senate record. I thought you would want that info in place of the incorrect quote that anti-McCarthyites have been passing around for years. Either way, I don't think you and I are doing bad work here and I am disappointed by TK's remark. I wish you the best in your work on this article. Despite what TK said about our efforts, I think you're doing great things here. Keep up the good work. Scorpio 23:18, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Between here, Communist Party of the United States of America#Espionage, and McCarthyism, I'm trying to write a good analytical narative, but the material is bulky, and it's too easy to wonder off on moot points. Let's keep focused. RobS 23:43, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Relax, guys. I am sure that these differences can be resolved. Scorpio, you have done good work here. RSchlafly 00:35, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly, thank you for the compliment. I really appreciate it. Best Regards. Scorpio 10:58, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, thank you for your kind words. The best that I can do regarding the "205 figure" in use in McCarthy's speech is to suggest that you read Buckley's book, pages 41-61. After reading that very clear explanation, I'm confident you will be sure that the 205 number was not used in the manner in which it was suggested. Remember, we are dealing with an article on Joseph McCarthy, not Ann Coulter. We have a responsibility to provide the facts regarding McCarthy and the events surrounding his life. The 205 quote as it stands now in the article is not a correct quote so at some point in time we need to either make it clear that it is merely "liberal deceit" or edit it out completely. We can't just leave it in a state of limbo where we don't say that it is accurate or that's inaccurate. Here's an idea for a way to make this work: Why don't you address the 205/6 number in the Venona section and let me address the fallacy of that inaccurate statement in the "United States Senate" section right after where I addressed the "57 cases" paragraph. That way, we address the liberal deceit of the "205 story" and then in the Venona section you could explain what McCarthy was talking about when he mentioned 205 cases as he stated on the Senate floor. Does that make sense? That sounds good, doesn't it? In fact, it's better than just eliminating the 205 claim altogether!! I like that a lot. What do you think? Let me know. This should work very well. Scorpio 12:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)


Hoover

Thanks. Wikipedia, and others, still seem to dwell very much on this, which may in the larger scheme of things, that is to say, the writing of history, be a moot point. But I'm definitely going to investigate those links.

The real story appears to be pretty much as outlined, that is to say, a deliberate confusion bewteen the FBI field investigations revealed in the November 26, 1957 Belmont to Boardman memo, and the Lee List. One is internal to the FBI, highly restricted and classified, the other was a State Dept report to Congress. One was a classified list of espionage suspects, the other the product of Congressional oversight process of security risks in an Executive Dept.

The FBI and Signals Intelligence were activily trying to identify unidentified decypted code names, and the Lee List was a logical place to start. Hoover was trying to match unidentified code names to known security risks on the Lee List. This is the real story here, and nowhere on the web is it really spelled out as I have just included. RobS 17:00, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I know what you mean. Most of the sources on the internet are rabid anti-McCarthy sites and they will use discredited info as their sources. One reason I avoid Wikipedia's McCarthy article is because of the highly inaccurate and left-wing bias associated with the sources they use. The Buckley book is listed as a source even though I don't think that any of the info in the book is used. Just looking at their list of McCarthy cases, you can see the vast difference between what they have and what we've listed in this article. Even when the case shows that the witness was a security risk, the Wiki article writes the info in a way that either casts doubts on the info or the source. It's just a mess. I've noticed that the left-wingers like to juggle those numbers to make McCarthy look like he was lying or incompetent. If you read the Congressional Record that is reproduced in McCarthy's Major Speeches book, he confirms the 57 number as being in the speech. The Drummey article mentions the 57 in the speech and then makes reference to the 205 from the letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. Even better, if you can get your hands on Buckley's book, the investigation that followed that speech completely backs the 57 number as being the main number in the speech with the 200+ number being a number that he had access to but didn't use as McCarthy's detractors suggested he did. The 200 number was something that was given to the press in writing as background info at Wheeling. I think it's a good idea that you include the 200 number in the info you added, only that it be used in the proper context as Drummey states. Like you said, check out the sources and think about how you feel is the best way to phrase it. Scorpio 18:58, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
This is the source of the 200+ number: there were two different lists. One list was known from the Congressional oversight process, the "Lee list" and compiled in 1947 of security risks. The second list was highly classified and top secret, compiled from Venona (and other) evidence. The reason for the confusion was Hoover must have let McCarthy know the FBI had evidence of at least 205 known "security risks," yet the FBI knew in truth the number of 205 where more than just "security risks", they were actively involved in espionage activity. The Venona evidence contained 349 pseudonyms, so there remained 170 odd unidentified KGB operatives (from the 205 list, some were identified both by defector testimony and Venona evidence). Hoover it appears was attempting to match unidentified pseudonyms from Venona to the Lee List. Hoover must have told McCarthy that numerous names on the Lee List were, at a minimum security risks, and the FBI had reliable evidence many were likely to have been involved in espionage. As the article says, the Lee List was the likely starting point for the counterintelligence investigation.
Then we also must consider the immediate objective. The immediate objective was not law enforcement, that is to say, gather enough prosecutable evidence to charge a person and put them in trial. The immediate objective was simply to remove or force out of government positions all known security risks, given the political and world sitution (See McCarthyism#Tensions of the times), i.e. the Korean War, the penetration of the Manhattan Project and the theft of nuclear secrets.
In sum, it was a deliberate distortion propounded by Hoover; Louis Budenz said he could identify 400 spies, Venona corroborated Budenz defector testimony. Only 205 of 400 (or 349 from Venona) had been identified, leaving 100 to 200 unidentified. Something like only 9 from Venona evidence were also on the Lee List, so Hoover figured many more would prove to be unidentied pseudonyms from Venona evidence. Hoover, not wanting to reveal his hand form Venona, cast the shadow of suspicision on the remainder of the Lee List, and convinced McCarthy to pursue it. Further, there was strong evidence that if a security risk on the Lee List was not personally involved in espionage, there was a great liklihood they had knowledge or close associations with others who were. RobS 10:52, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

I loved this: "Hoover reported that a reliable source revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names, Soviet agents Alger Hiss and Nathan Gregory Silvermaster were listed well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson” and included others beyond reproach,..." Venona identifies Acheson in a benign manner. Is this memo suggesting Acheson was deeper involved? This is amazing stuff. I can't believe I've never seen it before. Scorpio 19:27, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

No, Acheson was squeeky clean, despite a personal affinity & alligience to Alger Hiss. This goes to (a) the personality of Hoover and (b) standard counterintelligence operations. Hoover was not beyond blackmailing Washington politicians to gain his own political clout, and Truman was well aware of this. That's how Truman looked at Hoover's charges, that by blackmail, Hoover was trying to throw his weight around and have some influence over Presidential appointments. But standard counterintelligence measures also required diguising the source of Hoover's information, so when he placed the two real subjects on the list, he disguised Venona by throwing in a few of his own personal political adversaries in hopes to get rid of all of them. But it backfired, and simply destroyed Hoover's credibility completely. (This was the sad state of the US Governments sorry counterintelligence affairs and operations in 1946, based largely upon naivette and inexperience). RobS 11:12, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Proceedural proposal

For others following this discussion, it may help to lay out some commonly used terms.

  • spies refers to Soviet agents and sources, persons known to be complicit in Soviet espionage. Also sometimes refered to as "operatives." It has become common to refer to them as "KGB Agents," where strictly speaking, some were agents of Soviet Military Intelligence, the GRU.
  • party members, while membership in the CPUSA does not mean a person was a spy, it was however illegal to be a party member and a federal employee. Virtually all spies were however, recruited from the party membership.
  • security risks, being a security risk does not necessarily mean a person was a spy, but it may mean (a) a person was vulnerable to recruitment into party membership or spying based upon their known associations or expressed beliefs; (b) a person was a party member; (c) a person was suspected of spying.
  • pseudonym or code name, usually from Venona decrypt.
  • true name identity of pseudonym of persons known to be complicit in spying.
  • Venona evidence where the context indicates a person was known to be complicit in spying.
  • defector testimony where a person was identified by a defector as complicit in spying.

One place to begin would be filling out the Louis Budenz article. Budenz said he could identify 400 spies as defector testimony. The 400 number was corroborated by the 349 pseudonyms from Venona evidence. Of the 349 which consisted of both identified and unidentified pseudonyms, 205 had been identified from both Venona evidence and defector testimony. Of the 349 pseudonyms in Venona evidence, 172 to date have been identified. Of the 205 known spies in 1950 from both Venona evidence and defector testimony, some had been corroborated by both, the difference bewteen 205 minus 172 coming mostly from defector testimony. Of the 349 pseudonyms minus the 205 true name identities known in 1950, 144 pseudonyms from Venona evidence remained unidentified spies.

Working from the Lee List of 108 security risks, the FBI sought to match security risks to unidentified pseudonyms from Venona evidence. This is where McCarthy came in, although the true nature and extent of the FBI's counterintelligence efforts to identify the remainder was never fully disclosed to McCarthy. McCarthy did know from Hoover however, that hundreds of unidentified security risks and spies remained unaccounted for. RobS 15:40, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, excellent info. Well said. Scorpio 17:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Other points of interest

In researching all this, I've discovered a few things I've never seen reported elsewhere. One for example is almost comical in it's irony, and that while McCarthy was engaged in witchhunts, a KGB agent was arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court. I have never read anyone anywhere report on this fact. See Allen Rosenberg.

Another point of interest is the case of Harold Glasser; Harold Glasser is extremely important in unravelling this story because the most condeming evidence of Alger Hiss really does not come from Venona evidence, it comes from a memorandum in Soviet Archives on Harold Glasser. Glasser I believe did testify in Executive Session.

Some cases are profoundly disturbing; Franz Leopold Neumann is one such case. Chief Researcher for the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, and Neumann was instrumental in the formation of the modern German Bundesrepublic, and is recognized as so in Germany today. Even John Earl Haynes remarked about how difficult it was for he & Harvey Klehr to write about. I experienced a similiar, personal, and moral struggle in writing his wikibio reproduced here in CP. I still have trouble when I think about it. Trude Lash is another.

As an intro to reading the Executive Transcripts, I would recommend this, Oral Interview with Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 1948-1979. She knew and worked closely with McCarthy, Cohn, Bobby Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, all of them, and understood very well the poltics of the situation, and how the Senate worked. Very excellent interview.

Oh, we need to integrate this link somewhere into the text, too Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. RobS 21:36, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, all excellent points. I'm familiar with some of that info but I agree with you that this all must be entered into the article some way or another. Also, I was glad you added the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to the link list. Scorpio 11:15, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Wow

I have to hand it to you guys, you really did your homework! ;-) Learn together 13:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, my friend. I can only characterize this as a labor of love. :) Best Regards. Scorpio 15:35, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
We really do have all the links and material on this page to write a definitive narrative of the whole matter, only I fear it is much larger than Joseph McCarthy or McCarthyism, but can't really think of a name to give to start a new page. Perhaps CPUSA could give us some space to begin improving the chronological flow of the whole situation from 1946 - 1954.
As to documentary sources for what's missing, it all comes down to two men, appropriately enough, J. Edgar Hoover and Lavenrti Beria. The "Beria file," as it's sometimes known, disappeared with Beria it appears, or if it or portions of it still exist somewhere in Soviet Archives, it is not likely any of it will be revealed anytime in the next 40 or 50 years, per Svetlana Chervonnaya of the Department of Domestic Policy Studies at the Insitute of USA and Canada in the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The Beria file is said to contain the names of all Los Alamos physicists working with the KGB, perhaps including Oppenheimer and Fermi. As to Hoover, either the FBI still has some files hidden away, or we just have to piece together his mode of operation from what exists. In studying Hoover, while much of the criticism leveled at him may be justified, Hoover appears to have been much more clever than given credit for, as he appears to be one of the very few non-elected officials who truelly grasped the entire situation, but was hampered by, and found it frustrating working within a system that was so inexperienced in dealing with the need for counterintelligence operations. The situation is not unlike today, in the post 9/11 era; a system built on transparency, free press, liberal democracy,and rule of law, by its very nature, is at a disadvantage countering lawless ideological subversives intent to destroy it. RobS 12:49, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

References

  1. McCarthy, Joseph (February 9, 1950) "Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia, 9 February 1950," in Michael P. Johnson, ed., Reading the American Past, Vol. II (Boston: Bedford Books, 1998), pgs. 191-195.
  2. Vernon, Wes (January 13, 2006). AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy. Accuracy In Media
  3. Irvine, Reed and Kincaid, Cliff (September 13, 2000). Joe McCarthy, a Victimizer or Victim. Accuracy In Media
  4. Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent (1954, 1995 Printing). McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And It's Meaning. Regnery Publishing Inc., pgs. 41-61. ISBN 0-89526-472-2
  5. http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/margaretchasesmithconscience.html

Newspaper image addition

Karajou, I'm glad to see you have interest in improving the McCarthy article. Usually before changes are made to an article, especially on an article which can be contentious, it's a good idea to address the addition on the Discussion page. I was wondering what you thought an unreadable image of the Washington Post would add to the article? There is no dispute that the "205 figure" was cited in the newspapers, but that number was on the press releases given as a rough draft at the request of the press before the speech in Wheeling, WV. Witnesses confirm that McCarthy did not follow that rough draft so the Washington Post article (which can not be read in the image you posted) is incorrect. Could you please address this issue here? Thank you. Scorpio 11:40, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, I was able to create a link to your photo as part of the footnote to the "205 cases" comment. It took me a while to figure out to do this but I felt it would be a good addition to the article as a footnote. I just couldn't figure out how to make it larger so it's readable. As you can see from the history, I kept trying different ways to make it work. I hope you approve of how I set it up. If you can figure out a way to make the photo larger as a part of a link, please let me know. Thank you again for your contribution. Scorpio 14:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

If you click on the two little squares on the lower right, you get this img. [18] Beneath the McCarthy article there appears an even more interesting headline, "Judge Rules Wife Gets Man's Body Shipped Her COD." Thank the Lord, by the time of Woodward & Bernstein the Washington Post got away from sensational tabloid journalism, huh? RobS 15:40, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
LOL!! :D I didn't even notice that!! That is hysterical!! Thanks for the best laugh I had today. I'm surprised they didn't try and blame that on "McCarthyism". :P Scorpio 16:14, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Discussion Removed From Andy's Page

McCarthy article issue

Dear Mr. Aschlafly, I appreciate your support of my work on the McCarthy page but I'm alarmed to find that Sysop-TK is not a fan of my contributions nor of those of RobS. He stated that, "I am a bit uneasy with just two editors 'bragaining' their way through what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a personal opinion piece." It distresses me to be told that the work that I spent countless hours contributing and carefully footnoting is being called essentially garbage. I have stated that I will cease contributing any further and will revert all my work on the McCarthy article if that perception of my contributions remains unchanged. I don't want to be a contributor of worthless information. That was never my intent. As for the time I have spent here, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute. Please let me know if I can help in any other article. Best Regards. Scorpio 22:02, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, perhaps if you get some rest, the drama level will subside. I said, on the talk page, I was uncomfortable with basically only two people, making bargains for how the article was going to read. Do you think it "scholarly" to horse-trade what facts to include, and how they are presented? Perhaps too much has been dealt with via email? Am I missing something? Did you think RobS was the only other editor on CP, beside yourself, interested in the topic? Your work is appreciated, Scorpio, always has been! But taking any form of disagreement as an attack, and posting all over this wiki, especially to the Brother's Schlafly ( and saying just how much you love their Mom)....well, that is a bit much. To me, the use of the 57 figure is just another Liberal Deceit. If you think my saying that makes you a contributor of worthless information, I am powerless to stop you. Voicing that "concern" could not be intrepreted by anyone rational as a criticism of either of you personally, or the superb nature of the work. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:39, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
It's not about getting rest, it's about clearing up your misconceptions regarding the situation in question. You called Rob's work and my work basically worthless because you think it's written as a personal piece. Not true. Everything is cited, footnoted, and referenced. There are no bargains being made, only agreements as to how best to layout an article that needs a lot of work. This is common in Wiki; it's called "cooperation". The info that Rob has added since he and I have been working together is fantastic. My only concern was with the "205 quote". That quote is the "liberal deceit" you are talking about. Yes, the number is correct but the quote Rob posted is emphatically wrong. I have provided several references supporting my position. Again, have you taken the time to check them out? If you did, you would find that the quote is wrong. McCarthy even addressed this on the Senate floor and gave his explanation about the 205 number. That info has been available for over 57 years yet people are still making that mistake. Some are doing it on purpose and some are doing it as part of their hatred of Senator McCarthy. Since the quote is wrong, has no citation, and it actually conflicts with the accurate info right above it, it should simply be removed and then an explanation given as to how exactly the 205 number came into play. It's so simple it would all of 5 minutes to do it. Plus, the info comes from Wikipedia, which we all know (I better than most) is a horrible source for such articles. WP standards are verifiabilty, not truth. So if you have a bunch of ant-McCarthy books spreading the same lie, it doesn't matter what the truth is because verifiability is the important factor.
Rob and I have not been communicating by email, so you misunderstood that as well. In answer to your question, yes, you are missing something. If you would just ask, we would tell you what's going on. As for editing the McCarthy article, Rob and I have contributed heavily to an article that had been locked and left for dead. Contrary to what you said, I'm not taking any disagreement as an attack, I never said anything like that.
As for my comments to the Schlafly brothers, that's my business. I have great respect for those guys as my User page makes clear. And, yes, I have been a great fan of their mom for over 20 years. This is the first chance I had to make that comment (and I made it only once in one place) and your attempt to attack my enthusiasm for Mrs. Schlafly is ridiculous. Sorry you don't appreciate my praise of this great lady.
As for the 57 figure, sorry but it's not another "liberal deceit". It's fact. There are few people who know as much about McCarthy as I do. I have plenty of sources and references to back up my statements. I have spoken with James Drummey and William Grigg about McCarthy and they both know I have been working on a book on McCarthy. How do you think I was able to make so many contributions?
Lastly, your comment that my work is nothing more than a "personal piece" is the equivalent of saying that the work is not scholarly. Don't you even realize that? It's very insulting so not only should you pick your words carefully but you should be aware of the implications of what you are saying. As a Syspop, that responsibility is even greater. Since it seems you didn't really mean to phrase your comments in that manner (posting comments online is often the worst way to convey emotions) I will continue working on the article and consider this matter closed. I hope we can move together forward and work in a positive fashion. Thank you. Scorpio 10:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Scorpio, Thank you for your hard work on Joseph McCarthy. You contributions have been magnanimous and extremely well researched. Conservapedia Commandment 1 states, "Everything you post must be true and verifiable," but you appear to be asking Conservapedia to take a stand in an extremely controversial, ongoing partisan debate. That McCarthy leaked the number 205, either at the podium on February 9, 1950 in Wheeling West Virgina, or in press interviews immediately afterwards, is indisputable. And it is hard to say "McCarthy was right," when McCarthy himself did not know what he was right about back in 1950.
We have kept the line of division between spies and security risks in two separate lists in the Joseph McCarthy article. The number 205 that McCarthy leaked came from J. Edgar Hoover [19], but McCarthy only refered to them as Communist party members, or security risks, who were allegedly still working in government. Wrong. The FBI knew the true name identies of 205 spies in 1950, some of which had never worked in government, and those that did had already been removed. McCarthy began backpeddling, perhaps because he knew he had inadvertantly leaked classified information. Hoover and McCarthy were not seeking to work from that list of 205. They were seeking to identify the remainder of unidentified code names from the Venona project.
What is the significance of this? The real target of McCarthy's credibility is not a man who has been dead for 50 years, it is a living person -- Ann Coulter. We have experienced enough of Coulter being targeted, slandered, and smeared right here in Conservapedia. So, our objective remains, not taking a loosing issue in an ongoing controversial partisan debate, but to adhere to our own rules. Thank you. RobS 11:45, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, thank you for your kind words. The best that I can do regarding the "205 figure" in use in McCarthy's speech is to suggest that you read Buckley's book, pages 41-61. After reading that very clear explanation, I'm confident you will be sure that the 205 number was not used in the manner in which it was suggested. Remember, we are dealing with an article on Joseph McCarthy, not Ann Coulter. We have a responsibility to provide the facts regarding McCarthy and the events surrounding his life. The 205 quote as it stands now in the article is not a correct quote so at some point in time we need to either make it clear that it is merely "liberal deceit" or edit it out completely. We can't just leave it in a state of limbo where we don't say that it is accurate or that's inaccurate. Here's an idea for a way to make this work: Why don't you address the 205/6 number in the Venona section and let me address the fallacy of that inaccurate statement in the "United States Senate" section right after where I addressed the "57 cases" paragraph. That way, we address the liberal deceit of the "205 story" and then in the Venona section you could explain what McCarthy was talking about when he mentioned 205 cases as he stated on the Senate floor. That sounds good, doesn't it? In fact, it's better than just eliminating the 205 claim altogether!! I like that a lot. What do you think? Let me know. This should work very well. (I'll post this in the McCarthy Discussion page as well). Scorpio 12:11, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I am waiting for your apology, Scorpio, for posting several places I dislike (not a fan) of the contributions of either Rob or yourself. From my one comment here, saying I didn't like horse-trading, you created a trollish issue, a red herring. I expect an apology, as I don't take kindly to trolls. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:51, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
TK, sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm glad we had a chance to chat about it. I look forward to working with you here at Conservapedia. Scorpio 19:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Scorpio, you're still missing the point. Venona yielded 349 code names. Elizabeth Bentley and others yielded 87, some of which were corroborated by Venona. The total that had been identified by 1950 was 205. Thus, 349 minus 205 = 144 remained unidentified. Hoover asked for McCarthy's help and suggested using the Lee List of 108 as a place to begin searching to identify the remainder. Only when Hoover briefed McCarthy, it is uncertain exactly what Hoover told McCarthy. Hoover must have said something to the effect of "we've already identified hundreds of spies, but we know hundreds remain."
So Hoover suggested the "Lee List of 108" was a good place to begin searching. The difficulty lies in confusing the Lee List of 108 security risks, with the now declassified FBI memo that accounted for 205 known spies. RobS 12:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, I understand all that. I"m not missing the point. Have you seen me disagree with you in any place? We've already discussed this in detail. I think somewhere here we are simply not connecting. All I'm talking about is the "205 quote" that you have added to the article. That's all. Without objection from you, I would simply like to give the reader the understanding that the quote is inaccurate, not that the 205 number is inaccurate. That's all. I will gladly leave Venona, Hoover, etc. to you. That's your baby and you are far more informed about those issues than am I. How about this: Let me make the edit that I'm talking about and if you don't like it, feel free to revert it. At least you can see exactly what I'm talking about instead of us going back and forth and not connecting with each other. There's no harm in my proposal. Can we please agree on that? Scorpio 14:09, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Give it a try, but the bottomline is, it is virtually undeniable that McCarthy told press reporters 205 on 9 February in Wheeling. Whether he said while addressing the luncheon from the podium, or later, is what has always been in dispute. And once again, it is largely a moot point at this juncture in the writing of the historical record. RobS 14:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, thank you for the opportunity. Yes, you're right that McCarthy mentioned the "205" figure at Wheeling. No question about it. But it wasn't in the way the left-wing has been saying. I'll get to work on it right away. Scorpio 15:51, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I wasn't clear what you meant by saying, "United States Senate - per Conservapedia:Commandments". Was there something in the Conservapedia Comments that I overlooked in reference to this article? Please let know. Also, I noticed you reverted the info back into Venona. That's OK, but so that it flows evenly, I'm going to make a small change. If you don't like it, just revert. Thanks again. Scorpio 16:20, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools