Thursday, October 20, 2005

Clooney Wrong - McCarthy Right

George Clooney's Goodnight and Good Luck omits the fact that at least 349 Americans were actively spying for the Soviet Union.



Declassified documents from the Venona Project show that McCarthy was right about Communist infiltration in the American government. Now, Hollywood attempts to peddle their self-indulgent version of martyrdom yet again. This time from the perspective of Edward R. Murrow - patron saint of today's mainstream media.

Who is buying it? Not many anymore. This witch hunt version of history is quickly becoming fiction in the "Information Reformation" age:

The Washington Post rips Clooney:
"...many Soviet spies [were] embedded in the U.S. government at the time. That's not all Clooney leaves out in his account of the Murrow-McCarthy fight: He leaves out the Cold War, the hot war in Korea, the Venona decrypts that proved how sophisticated and exhaustive the Russian intelligence initiative against the American target was."

Slate rolls its eyes:
"The film covers the five-month period from late 1953 to early 1954 during which Murrow combated the McCarthy-inspired hysteria over communist subversives with a quartet of programs on his weekly CBS series See It Now. The Venona transcripts have shown definitively that American communists and Soviet sympathizers, such as Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg, did gather information for Moscow..."

And, of course, Conservatives laugh:
From Human Events: "If George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck is the best shot the left can unload on Joe McCarthy these days, the famous Red hunter is well on his way to a thorough rehabilitation."

Read my take on McCarthy and Venona below (originally posted last July)



Senator Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist."
--Charles Baudelaire

Thanks to the Venona project, a secret FBI/NSA/CIA program that intercepted and deciphered Soviet diplomatic transmissions from 1937 until 1980, it is clear now that McCarthy was exactly right about Communists in the American government. In fact, he had underestimated the depth, scope, and severity of the breach.

Soviet cables now make clear that 349 Americans were in fact working for Stalin from 1939-1957. The most famous among those confirmed as spies were Alger Hiss (whose unfortunate code name was "LIBERAL") and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. See below for a listing of identified Communists.

Although Venona became public in 1995, relatively little attention has been paid to it. Conservatives must champion this as the biggest "I told you so!" of the ages. If we don't, apparently no one else will. The lack of attention paid to Venona tells us as much about academic and media agenda today as it does during McCarthy's time.

Simply put - Joe McCarthy deserves a posthumous apology from the US Senate. Further, the Democratic Party should own up to its grim history of Soviet appeasement, collaboration with, and support for a regime responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people. Some estimates have the Soviet machine responsible for over 170 million deaths worldwide.

Had the Democrats and Hollywood Left rejected and exposed Communists in their midst, perhaps the Cold War could have ended decades earlier with millions of lives saved.

However, with so many pledging their loyalties to the Russian cult of State, Liberals chose instead to destroy McCarthy, write fiction portraying "victimhood", and sling counter charges that the only danger we faced as Americans was from reckless Republicans with the audacity to ask about their fraternization with the enemy. While millions were marched off to gulags to dig their own graves, American Liberals sobbed hysterically about being blacklisted by film studios or questioned about their actual support for actual Communists. {Keep in mind that Democrats during this time supported the internment of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens.}

I guess it should come to no surprise how little attention has been paid to Venona by major media, the Democratic party, universities, high schools, show business, popular culture, etc.. Kids today are still reading Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter and Arthur Miller's The Crucible as allegories for McCarthy's crusade. Ann Coulter does a great job detailing this dynamic in her book, Treason.

How does this happen? CNN's Harvey Klehr examines the Red Scare and sums up major media's thoughts on the Venona revelations thus:

"This new evidence is forcing the revision of many of the prevailing myths about the internal communist threat to American democracy in the postwar era. None of it exculpates McCarthy. He remains a political bully who hurt a number of people."

A bully who hurt people? This would be a fine assessment of things had McCarthy not been right. How does Klehr suggest one should react to those secretly sending Stalin sensitive information? Tickling them into submission? I'm sure Nazi collaborators were "hurt" too when they were outed. And, I'll bet that cockroaches don't like it when the light turns on in the basement either.

In another "circle the wagons" assessment, the late Democratic Senator Daniel Moynihan reviewed the impact of Venona in a book entitled Secrecy: The American Experience published in 1998. In typical Liberal fashion, he blames everyone but the spies themselves and his own party's complicit tolerance of them. Below he specifically blames the FBI four decades later for keeping the spy list secret:

"Not for another forty years would government tell what it actually knew about the Communist conspiracy: there had indeed been one, but it had never been massive; it has first been contained, then suppressed. A democracy does not leave its citizens uninformed on these matters."

Not been massive? If you don't think that 349 Soviet spies working inside all three branches of government qualifies as massive, then what does? It's well known today that publicizing the names would have tipped off the Soviets that we had broken their codes. Knowing the risks involved, the names of those spying were kept confidential at the personal request of General Omar Bradley.

Suppressed? How so, Senator? Not one victim can be produced from McCarthy's crusade. Or, would detailing the damage done by Democrats during this era be too much even for today's Democrats to explain away? It's simply easier to claim, "There was no threat."

Sound familiar?

I take heart in the fact that what happened to McCarthy won't happen again. With tens of thousands of bloggers coming online everyday we're part of an "Information Reformation" that is returning truth to its rightful owners. The OMSM (once mainstream media) can no longer operate as the Ministry of Information for the Left. If they won't apply scrutiny - bloggers will.

Thanks to this new dynamic, Liberals now have to back up their charges as well as their denials. The Dick Durbins of the world now have to explain what they mean as their speeches are heard. Their behavior is observed. Their hyperbole deflated and their support for our enemies is more evident than ever. It's apparent now that we can't trust media to act as the "watchdog of government" if they attack and destroy those who would otherwise protects us.

In light of Venona, words like treason, sedition, and traitor have new relevance. Despite what Liberals would have you believe, loyalty is a valid topic for debate. There is dissent and loyal opposition - then there are lies from the mouths of Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Dick Durbin and company designed to embolden our enemies, slander our good names, and create more dangerous conditions for our soldiers.

Most likely, McCarthy will remain a bogeyman for some time to come. Without his convenient ghost to conjure , the Left would actually have to answer to critics questioning their aiding and abetting of our enemies.

Although the names and times have changed, the players are no different today than in McCarthy's time. We're at war, with many among us (mostly on the Left) claiming there is no real danger but that posed by John Ashcroft, or Alberto Gonzales, or Karl Rove, or Halliburton, or Conservatives in general. Meanwhile, the media seem content to report solely on the operational efficiency of the enemy or how American soldiers are forcing terrorist inmates to listen to rap music.

So when Michael Moore states, "Somebody needs to just say this: there is no terrorist threat..." you might reconsider his motives and take a look at the list of American traitors who comprised "no threat" 50 years ago.

9 Comments:

Anonymous MT said...

Well done. It's great to feel that even the Hollywood Left now has truth-tellers keeping them honest, or at least shining the light on them when they're not.

I'm even starting to hear more about conservative film makers that are essentially flipping Barbra the the rest the proverbial bird. America is just beginning to wake up to the bias undercurrent in the media and in Hollywood. O'Reilly is hot on it right now after being denigrated with lies by a Dallas reporter whose paper refuses to acknowledge the misrepresentation.
I'm encouraged.

10/20/2005 09:27:00 PM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

It is encouraging - this film along would have become fact 10 years ago. Not now. We've got their number -- just ask Dan Rather or Mary Mapes.

10/20/2005 10:14:00 PM  
Anonymous ray b said...

What do you think about Loyalty Oaths?

10/21/2005 11:52:00 AM  
Anonymous ray b said...

"...designed to embolden our enemies, slander our good names, and create more dangerous conditions for our soldiers."

You mean like these guys:

Afghans outraged over alleged U.S. burning of bodies

October 21, 2005

BY DANIEL COONEY
ASSOCIATED PRESS

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Muslim clerics expressed outrage Thursday and warned of a possible violent anti-U.S. backlash from TV footage that appears to show U.S. soldiers burning the bodies of two dead Taliban fighters.


"Abu Ghraib ruined the reputation of the Americans in Iraq, and to me, this is even worse," said Faiz Mohammed, a top cleric in northern Kunduz province. "This is against Islam. ... There will be very, very dangerous consequences from this."

Cremating bodies is banned under Islam.

President Hamid Karzai ordered an inquiry, and the U.S. military said the Army Criminal Investigation Command was looking into the matter.

"This alleged action is repugnant to our common values," Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya, operational commander of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, said.

Worried about the potential for anti-U.S. feelings, the State Department said it instructed U.S. embassies around the world to tell local governments that the reported abuse didn't reflect U.S. values.

In Afghanistan, anger was evident in the streets.

"If they continue to carry out such actions against us, our people will change their policy and react with the same policy against them," said Mehrajuddin of Kabul, who like many Afghans uses only one name.

Another man in the capital, Zahidullah, said the report was similar to those of atrocities committed by Soviet troops, who were driven out of Afghanistan in 1989 after a decade of occupation. He said the same could happen to U.S. forces.

"Their future will be like the Russians," Zahidullah said.

Australia's SBS TV network broadcast the video purportedly showing soldiers burning the bodies of two suspected Taliban fighters in hills outside Gonbaz village in the southern Shah Wali Kot district -- an area of Taliban activity considered by local security forces as too dangerous to venture into unless accompanied by U.S. troops.

The network said the video was taken by freelance journalist Stephen Dupont. Dupont, who told the Associated Press he was embedded with the Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade, said the burnings happened Oct. 1. He told SBS that U.S. soldiers in a psychological operations unit later broadcast taunting messages aimed at the village, which was believed to be harboring Taliban fighters.

Said Dupont: "They deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them. ... That's the only way they can find them."

10/21/2005 11:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Karl R. said...

The Washington Post rips Clooney:

"...many Soviet spies [were] embedded in the U.S. government at the time. That's not all Clooney leaves out in his account of the Murrow-McCarthy fight: He leaves out the Cold War, the hot war in Korea, the Venona decrypts that proved how sophisticated and exhaustive the Russian intelligence initiative against the American target was."

Slate rolls its eyes:

"The film covers the five-month period from late 1953 to early 1954 during which Murrow combated the McCarthy-inspired hysteria over communist subversives with a quartet of programs on his weekly CBS series See It Now. The Venona transcripts have shown definitively that American communists and Soviet sympathizers, such as Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg, did gather information for Moscow..."

Hey, I thought the Wash. Post and Slate were part of the MSM conspiracy???

Or is that when they only publish things you don't like.

10/21/2005 12:08:00 PM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

If by loyalty oaths mean loyalty to country during wartime, to your wife, to your friends - then, yes.

10/21/2005 03:39:00 PM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

I think credit is due with their reviews. Somethings are so obvious, even they can't spin it.

10/21/2005 03:41:00 PM  
Anonymous ray b. said...

Would you take a loyalty oath if they demanded of it where you work - a loyality oath to the U.S. - and if you didn't take an oath they would fire you?

read this crap:

Posted on Wed, Sep. 21, 2005

Loyalty oath among the frustrations for would-be volunteers

BY JOHN BEBOW
Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO - (KRT) - Jessica Parman wanted to help hurricane victims, but didn't see the need to pledge allegiance to her government to do it.

Parman said she was turned away from a hurricane relief center in Chicago last week because she refused to sign an oath presented by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency.

The oath required, in part, that volunteers "support and defend" the United States and Illinois constitutions and swear not to "advocate nor become a member of any political party or organization" that advocated the overthrow of the state or federal governments "by force or violence."

Parman said she told volunteer coordinators that she thought the oath violated her First Amendment rights. The coordinators, Parman said, then denied her access to the volunteer center at Fosco Park Community Center.

"It is an invasion of privacy and totally irrelevant to the volunteer work at hand," said Parman, a University of Illinois-Chicago graduate student.

Parman's is another in a wide range of frustrations volunteers have encountered as they tried to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Volunteers at Chicago-area relief centers waited for days without anything to do as evacuees trickled in. Buses from Wisconsin came home empty after arriving too late to transfer refugees out of the Superdome in New Orleans.

And groups of volunteer firefighters languished in Atlanta hotel for days at a time awaiting a mission, while other firefighters from Bensenville, Ill., got almost all the way to the Gulf Coast in early September before they were ordered home in a power struggle with village officials.

In Parman's case, a City of Chicago spokesman said the loyalty form was not mandatory and she should not have been turned away from volunteering.

"If she was turned away, it was not done in malice," said Larry Merritt, with the city's Office of Emergency Management and Communication. "The city would welcome her to volunteer."

But Illinois Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Patti Thompson insisted the oath was a routine form, required by state law, because volunteers essentially become de facto state employees who, if injured while doing good works, would be eligible for workers compensation.

"If we're going to cover people, we're bound by this language," Thompson said.

Merritt and Thompson said they had not heard other complaints about the oath, but First Amendment experts raised concerns.

"It's hard to identify a legitimate government interest in getting this information from volunteers," said Colleen Connell, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. "All it does is harass volunteers on the basis of past membership activities."

A 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutionality of loyalty oaths requiring public employees to defend the Constitution and oppose the overthrow of the government.

However, other rulings have determined it unconstitutional to require people to sign oaths assuring they had never participated in organizations advocating the overthrow of the government. Such oaths gained prominence during the anti-Communist "red scare" of the Cold War.

In that respect, the oath Parman was asked to sign didn't pass constitutional muster, said Rodney Blackman, a DePaul University law professor.

"When we're talking about volunteer work that has almost nothing to do with what's asked in the oath, it's almost certainly unconstitutional," Blackman said.

---

10/22/2005 10:10:00 AM  
Anonymous rightwingprof said...

No trackbacks? I linked to this excellent article:

http://rightwingnation.com/index.php/2005/11/15/431/

11/15/2005 01:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home