Talk:Joseph McCarthy
This article is horrendously written. Truly. Would someone with some good sources tear it apart?--AmesG 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I'd take a look at it now, but I'm going to work soon. MountainDew 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)
It seems a shame to mention only the horrid propoganda about this true American hero. Maybe we can work out a compromise. ATB 12:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)
The latest version, although stripped down, is more respectful to this great man. ATB 14:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Although the wikipedia article continues to smear and blacken the name of this great American, I was able to use some of it as a base to flesh out this article to provide some more detail about the great Senator. I hope you like it. â FÊɪɺøÊÉ ( ÑÉÊк ⢠¢Êиâ Ê¡βs ) 21:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Well... I hate to go against the grain but the only reason why he's notable is because of the bad things that he did do. And this is the new century, do we really need to keep acting like communism is still the big bad enemy? Last time I checked most communist countries fell out of power, sans China, and democracy still reigns over most of the world. And are the flowery words really needed? Of course it's heroic, what kind of a liberal fool are you to have to be told as such? --Ronnyreg 21:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Go ahead and list the specific bad things that he did. Just don't put meaningless generalities, such as saying that he was "discredited". I put in the actual censure finding against him. Someone else put in how he exaggerated his war record. Do you have anything else to add? RSchlafly 22:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Would mentioning that he never came forth with his evidence could as a "generality"? I mean he sure made a lot of accusations and ruined a lot of people without really doing anything but either calling them a communist or having them investigated. --Ronnyreg 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Basically what happened, IMO, as one who has studied this period at length, the FBI & NSA kept Venona evidence a closely guarded secret for several reasons, so they needed evidence from other sources to go into a court of law. Now, if the FBI led McCarthy to a prime suspect, that would tip the KGB that the US had evidence to suspect such a one. And the Communist conspiracy, which in fact was found to exist based upon several US Government Reports from the 1960s on, was extermely large scale indeed. No fewer than 400 involved, most likely at least 800, and possibly as high as 1200. There were two CPUSA organizations, the "open party", and the "underground apparartus". In my view, the FBI gave McCarthy basically dead-end files.
- Would mentioning that he never came forth with his evidence could as a "generality"? I mean he sure made a lot of accusations and ruined a lot of people without really doing anything but either calling them a communist or having them investigated. --Ronnyreg 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Here an undersatanding of the relationship between Hoover & McCarthy is necessary. McCarthy was an ex-judge, and Hoover a cop. So the relationship was not unlike any routine law enforcement official going before a judge asking for a search warrant based upon the evidence in hand. But this was not a Court, and McCarthy was willing to use his Legislative Committee to moreless perform an Executive and quasi-Judicial function. The FBI didn't want to tip its hand regarding its real suspects, and the Communist Party membership was quite often an intimate family affair. So the FBI in many instances would hand McCarthy a file of, say, a brother-in-law tothe real suspect. Now the person called before Committee may have been a member of the open party, and may have even known his family relative was involved in some questionable things, and the subpeoaned persons FBI may have had some dirt or embarassing thing in it, so they were essentially being blackmailed -- rat out somebody you know, or all this junk in you file becomes page one news.
- That's moreless my picture of how it worked. The question remians did McCarthy know he was getting bogus info from the FBI, and I wouold likewise say he did not. This is infact explains the Army-McCarthy hearings, cause Army Signals Intelligence is who handled Venona, and I think at some point McCarthy realized the files from the FBI were dead end, and it appeared the Army was hiding something, which indeed they were, the Venona project.