Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism




НазваниеLiberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism
страница15/44
Дата17.02.2013
Размер0.98 Mb.
ТипДокументы
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   44
But Welch was not particularly interested in the truth. He was playing to the peanut gallery. The reporters, the Democrats, and Welch himself were all having a rip-roaring good laugh at the notion of Com­munists in government. Stalin's show trials must have had them in stitches. Welch concluded his badgering of Cohn with one final jeer: "May I add my small voice, sir, and say whenever you know about a subversive or a Communist spy, please hurry. Will you remember those words?"

It was after all this - Welch's gay-baiting, mocking attack on McCarthy's assistant - that McCarthy stepped in with a knockout punch. He said that in light of the fact that Mr. Welch "has such terror and such a great desire to know where anyone is located who may be serving the Communist cause, ... we should just call to your attention the fact that your Mr. Fisher, who is still in your law firm today, whom you asked to have down here looking over the secret and classified material, is a member of an organization, not named by me but . . . named by the Attorney General, ... I quote this verbatim, as 'the legal bulwark of the Communist Party.' He belonged to that for a sizable number of years, according to his own admission, and he belonged to it long after it had been exposed as the legal arm of the Communist Party." Welch had walked right into it. You want to know where the Communists are? In jour law firm, Mr. Welch. McCarthy continued: "I have hesitated bringing that up, but I have been rather bored with your phony requests to Mr. Cohn here that he personally get every Commu­nist out of government before sundown. Therefore, we will give you information about the young man in your own organization."

It was a devastating rejoinder to Welch's theatrics. Consequently, Welch responded the way liberals always do when they have been out­foxed. He cried. Slowly, deliberately, and with glistening eyes, Welch said, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." Boo hoo hoo. He also made the singu­larly unhelpful point that Fred Fisher had attended Harvard Law School, not exactly an unheard-of training ground for Communists. Welch admitted that yes, he had invited Fisher to work for the com­mittee, but when he found out about the Lawyers Guild, he sent him back to Boston. Welch said he told Fisher that if his work for the Lawyers Guild was ever revealed, it would "just hurt like the dickens."

Oddly, for a man who hoped to spare Fisher that pain, Welch had already told the whole story to the New York Times. Telling the New York Times of Fisher's Communist past proved an ineffective method of keeping it quiet. Two months earlier, the Newspaper of Record had run a photo of Fisher along with the story: "Mr. Welch today confirmed news reports that he had relieved from duty his original second assis­tant, Frederick G. Fisher, Jr. of his own Boston law office, because of admitted previous membership in the National Lawyers Guild, re­ferred to by Herbert Brownell, Jr. the Attorney General, as 'the legal mouthpiece of the Communist Party.' "73 (Years later, in its passion for accuracy, the New York Times would falsely state that it was McCarthy who had branded the Lawyers Guild "the legal bulwark of the Com­munist Party.")74

When McCarthy had the temerity to mention this deeply personal and private fact - recently published in the New York Times - Welch was shocked to the core. He scolded McCarthy: "Little did I dream you could be so reckless and cruel as to do an injury to that lad" (who had been a member of the legal arm of the Communist Party). The revela­tion of Fisher's association with the National Lawyers Guild would be a scar "he shall always bear." If so, it was also a scar that Welch had already inflicted. A towering monument of wounded indignation, Welch said he could not forgive McCarthy. "If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I will do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."

An astonished McCarthy responded to Welch's "cruel and reck­less" speech by noting that it was Welch who had just "been baiting Mr. Cohn here for hours, requesting that Mr. Cohn, before sundown, get out of any department of Government anyone who is serving the Communist cause." Welch quickly brushed aside his venomous attacks on Cohn, saying to him, "I meant to do you no injury, sir." Let's move on. Then he returned with gusto to sobbing about Fisher, launching the line about which songs will be sung for generations to come: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

This is usually when the trumpets blare and the curtain closes. In fact, the hearing continued. By now, McCarthy was completely per­plexed. Raising a topic of precisely zero interest to liberals, he said, if "I say anything which is not the truth, then I would like to know about it." The truth was immaterial. Welch was going for an Academy Award. All aquiver with emotion, Welch babbled about "a God in heaven" (at least he did not use the Clintonian "my God") and made the excep­tionally stupid point that all this time McCarthy had "sat within six feet of me," and could have asked about Fred Fisher directly. Appar­ently, that same six feet was an impossible distance for Welch to tra­verse in order to ask Cohn about Communists "running loose" in the government.

Reporters, who had shown their dispassion throughout the hearing by cackling and hooting at McCarthy, burst into applause. From start to finish, the press gallery performed the same function as the bovine, in-studio audiences for political talk shows. They cheered at every insult thrown at McCarthy, no matter how stupid or humorless. McCarthy's unfailingly witty ripostes were met with stone silence or womanly gasps of horror from the peanut gallery.

Welch's performance was still not complete. In the hallway outside the hearing room, he walked a gauntlet of cameras, managing to evoke a few fresh tears for each one. Woe was the tormented Fred Fisher - who was about to be made partner at Welch's law firm. Finally, when Welch had rounded a corner and was out of sight of the press, he perked up and chipperly asked an assistant, "Well, how did it go?"75 Precisely ten seconds after Welch stopped crying about the per­manent scar left by Fisher's association with the Lawyers Guild, lib­erals reverted to calling the Lawyers Guild a group of idealists who believed in civil rights.76 Years later the Legal Times would refer to the Guild of the fifties as "the allegedly subversive student group."77 The New York Times has variously referred to the Guild as "a nation­wide organization noted for its concern with liberal causes and civil rights" and "a national lawyers organization that has long been asso­ciated with the labor movement and liberal causes."78 One is left to wonder why Welch thought membership in such a fine organization as the Lawyers Guild could wreck a man's career. Weren't they just a group of idealists?

In a shocking development, despite Welch's predictions of utter ruin, Fisher somehow survived the permanent scar of his association with the National Lawyers Guild. On the occasion of Fisher's death, the New York Times described the horror and suffering that befell Fisher: "Despite Mr. Welch's dire predictions, [Fisher] went on to become a partner at Boston's prestigious Hale & Dorr and president of the Mass­achusetts Bar Association."79 And he got a nice obituary in the New York Times.

Welch's performance at the Army-McCarthy hearings is the es­sence of liberal argumentation. Welch would say something vicious, McCarthy would reply, and Welch would start crying. This is why no woman worth her salt ever loses an argument. She starts crying, mak­ing it unmanly to pursue your victory. With the exception of Senator Stuart Symington, whom McCarthy repeatedly referred to as an "alleged man," McCarthy made the mistake of assuming he was deal­ing with men, not little girls. As he left the hearing room, McCarthy kept asking everyone around him, "What did I do?"80

The press was exultant, thrilled that Welch had gotten the better of McCarthy - or at least he would in their stories about the hearing the next day. No rational person could view that hearing and react with horror at Joe McCarthy. Democrats do the most outrageous things imaginable - collaborate with totalitarian regimes, commit felonies in the Oval Office, gay-bait Senate staffers - and if anyone complains, they scream about fascist oppression. Through the left's infernal slan­der techniques, the myth of McCarthyism took flower.

In liberal folklore, Welch's tearful response to McCarthy would not be matched until Bill Clinton angrily insisted he would selflessly fight impeachment to vindicate "the plain meaning of the Constitution." Imagine how Ken Starr would have looked to a country with no organ­ized opposition to liberals. No Internet, no Fox News Channel, no Rush Limbaugh. Nothing but Nina Burleigh gushing to the Washington Post: Pd be happy to give Joe Welch oral sex just to thank him for attacking McCarthy. (Actual July 1998 quote about Bill Clinton from former Time magazine reporter Nina Burleigh: "I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.")

It simply must be accepted that McCarthy is bad because of liber­als' capacity to call him names. One article says the Army-McCarthy hearings show McCarthy "in all of his demagogic glory."81 Another por­trays McCarthy as the opposite of a bully, saying Welch's "verbal dex­terity render[ed] McCarthy a mountain of quaking, mute terror."82 So was he a demagogue or a mass of quaking, mute terror? And wasn't inspiring terror a bad thing when McCarthy did it? Liberals can't get their stories straight, which would matter if they were engaged in hon­est reporting rather than spinning fairy tales.

Another account of the hearings reported objectively, "This is a story of good triumphing over evil, of two men going into battle. McCarthy is the dark knight, his opponent the simple and good Joseph Welch, the Army's counsel."83 Any normal human who watched the hearings without being told that Joseph Welch was "simple and good" might well mistake him for Uriah Heep. The sniveling and sarcastic Welch made Clinton lawyer David Kendall look manly.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has described Welch's

speech at Agincourt this way: "When Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear one more innocent victim, Welch burst out with a heartfelt solil­oquy that earned him a place in the pantheon of liberty."84 The Wash­ington Post's similarly fatuous account claims that before delivering his speech at Agincourt, "Welch stood up, [and] faced" McCarthy - demonstrating that the Post reporter had not even bothered to watch a tape of the hearing before proceeding to describe McCarthy as an utter beast.85

Even the documentary of the hearings, Point of Order, cannot obscure the truth. The documentary shows 97 minutes of the hearing, cut and edited down from 188 hours of tape to make McCarthy look like a monkey. People know they are supposed to hate McCarthy, so they do, even when the facts in front of them show nothing hateful. After a solid night of drinking, McCarthy still was never at a loss for a clever comeback. When he got the better of Welch, Welch pouted and cried.

Two other incidents from the Army-McCarthy hearings help illus­trate what liberals mean when they say McCarthy trampled human decency and crushed the human spirit. First, McCarthy refused to reveal his sources. He had produced an outline of a letter from J. Edgar Hoover to the Army alerting them to the Communist infiltration at Fort Monmouth. The Democrats couldn't have cared less about Communists in the Army. As with Linda Tripp, they simply wanted to prove that the manner by which a Republican had exposed liberals broke some law. Phony folksy country lawyer Joe Welch demanded that McCarthy reveal his source's name. Far from unreasonable, McCarthy described his source generally as someone with Army intelligence, but refused to give up the name. As McCarthy correctly said, no govern­ment whistleblower would ever step forward if his confidence could not be kept. Liberals were indignant that McCarthy insisted on protecting his sources.

McCarthy was also the only senator to recognize the significance of a new privilege claimed by President Eisenhower at the hearings. It was during the Army-McCarthy hearings that a U.S. president would invoke executive privilege for the first time. Eisenhower refused to allow anyone from the Army to testify about what steps the Army had taken to screen out possible Soviet spies, claiming "executive privi­lege." Liberals were awed by the genius and majesty of Eisenhower's position that the president did not have to respond to congressional subpoenas.

They were not so impressed with the concept when Nixon tried it twenty years later. Nixon's mere invocation of executive privilege was one of the grounds Democrats cited for his impeachment. But in the Army-McCarthy hearings, McCarthy was the only person to recognize what a breathtaking privilege Eisenhower had claimed. Saying he had no dispute with Eisenhower, McCarthy warned that there would be other presidents and if Congress accepted the claim of "executive priv­ilege," it would set a dangerous precedent. At this point the viewer is supposed to laugh at McCarthy and forget about Watergate and Nixon. McCarthy was a wicked, wicked man. That's all you need to know.

Liberals could not believe McCarthy would stubbornly refuse to back down in the face of their hysterics. Conservatives are required to lose an argument on purpose whenever some liberal starts sniffling. It's their obligation to let liberals have the last word. Otherwise, the con­servative is being arch and cruel. These courageous liberals with their voices of principle were appalled that McCarthy raised objections to a president's blanket claim of "executive privilege." They claimed to be outraged that McCarthy refused to divulge a whistleblower's name. While feverishly assembling a blue-ribbon Senate Committee to inves­tigate whether David Schine wore a "fur-lined" cap, Democrats were indignant that McCarthy insisted on investigating Soviet espionage in the highest reaches of government.

Their passion of hate for McCarthy had only one cause, candidly explained by Hubert Humphrey: "McCarthy's real threat to American democracy [was] the fact that he has immobilized the liberal move­ment."86 So they created a hobgoblin for the masses to fear. The New York Times campaigned viciously against McCarthy, the Senate was

constantly investigating him, the elites turned every Communist named by McCarthy into a national hero. They finally killed him with a thousand cuts.

In 1954, when liberal loathing of McCarthy had reached a fever pitch, CBS ran a vicious, deceptive hatchet piece on him viewed by millions of Americans. It was produced by Edward R. Murrow, friend of Soviet spy Laurence Duggan.87 Other organs of establishmentarian treason followed suit. The Senate voted to hold hearings on a censure resolution against McCarthy.

Among the grounds being considered for censure were McCarthy's remarks about Senator Ralph Flanders (R-Vt.). In a fire-breathing dia­tribe on the Senate floor, Flanders had called McCarthy a homosexual and compared him to Hitler. In response, McCarthy said, "I think they should get a man with a net and take him to a good quiet place."88 For this the Democrats thought McCarthy should be censured. It is intem­perate for Republicans to respond to vicious abuse by the Democrats. In the end, that particular censure count was rejected, but McCarthy was censured on two similarly absurd counts: statements he made in defiance of senators investigating him. Senators were free to defame and abuse McCarthy, but it was considered a grave violation of the dignity of the Senate if he criticized them back. McCarthy said Senator Flanders had to be "taken out of mothballs" to pursue the censure res­olution.89 He called one of his inquisitors, Senator Robert Hendrickson (D-Md.), "a living miracle . . . the only man in the world who had lived so long with neither brains nor guts."90 For these statements, McCarthy was censured by a body that, fifty years later, would do nothing about a president who committed felonies to obstruct a sexual harassment lawsuit.
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   44

Похожие:

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBooks on the Cold War

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconIn the decade after the end of the cold war

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconCold War Development of Scalar Interferometry

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconEast Asia in the Post-Cold War Era

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism icon1 New Approaches to Cold War: History and Current International Politics

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconThe Otherworld War (The Multiverse War) Cover Blurb

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconPaper presented at the International Conference on The History of the Cold War, Cortona, Italy, October 5–6, 2001

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconWar and peace? An agenda for peace research in geography. Nick Megoran, Newcastle University. Needs – engaging war. Maybe as crit geop section Abstract

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconAnTir/West war was lots of fun! The fighting was great! The results of the war met with an unfortunate accident so we can only assume AnTir won! (of course, we can as easily assume the West won!)

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBiography
«terrorism, war, internal and external security» "terrorisme, guerre, sécurité intérieure, sécurité extérieure", unanimously awarded,...
Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница