Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism

НазваниеLiberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism
Размер0.98 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   44

When the Democrats' bluff was called in a roll call vote in Con­gress, many voted for war with Iraq. Inadvertently performing a great service, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd revealed the Demo­crats' treasonous calculations. She explained that Democrats would be forced to fake enthusiasm for the war on terror or lose the American people forever. Democrats, she said, "fear that if they approach" Iraq the same way they did during the Gulf War in 1991, "they will be por­trayed as McGovernite wimps."42 Consequently, liberals would lie and pretend to support America. With their votes duly recorded, they went right back to attacking the war. But why were they against it? Saddam Hussein was a madman developing weapons of mass destruction stew­ing in the same swamp as the 9-11 terrorists. We could beat him. Why were the Democrats against doing that? What do liberals want? Freud would have gone crazy with these people. Figuring out what women want is easy compared to liberals.

The only two living former Democratic presidents publicly op­posed the Bush administration's plan to invade Iraq. Jimmy Carter couldn't land a helicopter in a desert, but he seemed to imagine the public was hungry for his counsel in the war on terrorism. Carter is so often maligned for his stupidity, it tends to be forgotten that he is also selfrighteous, vengeful, sneaky, and backstabbing. In a vituperative piece in the Washington Post, Carter peremptorily announced, "There is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad."43 The real threat to world peace and global human rights, he said, came from President Bush. The Bush administration, with its "belligerent and divisive voices," was becoming "similar to those of abusive regimes that historically have been condemned by American presidents."

This for incarcerating members of al-Qaeda at Guantanamo with­out regulation tennis courts. The only subject fewer authentic Ameri­cans cared about than the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo was World Cup Soccer. America is in an epic global battle with ruthless savages who seek our destruction, and liberals are feeling sorry for the terrorists. Unlike the "belligerent and divisive voices" here in Amer­ica, Carter believed that the great statesman Saddam Hussein could be reasoned with, despite the fact that Hussein was a habitual liar and cold-blooded murderer. But surely Saddam would realize, Carter said, that actually using a weapon of mass destruction "would be suicidal." Unless, of course, a Democrat were in the White House, in which case Saddam could rest assured that there would be no "belligerent and divisive voices" to counsel retaliation.

Bill Clinton, who bombed an aspirin factory in the Sudan to dis­tract from the investigation of his criminal offenses at home, also had a lot of advice for President Bush. The impeached former president unleashed the canard about having to get Osama bin Laden "first" - as if there could ever be sufficient predicates for a Democrat to support their own country in war. "Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on September 11," Clinton said. "Osama Bin Laden did, and as far as we know he's still alive."44 This came roughly one month after Clinton suggested that resources being used to pursue Osama bin Laden could be better spent combating AIDS. Clinton had proposed that the coun­try spend another $1.5 billion fighting AIDS - which was, he pointedly noted, "less than two months of the Afghan war" and "less than 2 per­cent of the requested increases for defense in America."45 So first we abolish AIDS, then we produce Osama's DNA, and then the time will be ripe to take out a madman frantically developing weapons of mass destruction who longs to annihilate Americans. Liberals' attitude toward a swamp is that we have to go around killing mosquitoes individually only after proving the targeted mosquito is about to bite us. Otherwise, we might make the mosquitoes mad.

Whatever the left's last-minute hawkishness, all their behavior is calculated to demoralize Americans and to suppress anger. Liberals' principal contribution to the war on terrorism has been to bill them­selves as a corrective to "jingoism." Their real goal is too appalling to state out loud.

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Sad­dam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down.



In what would turn out to be one of the most significant events of the twentieth century, in 1938, Whittaker Chambers broke with the Communist Party. The political battle lines were drawn over Chambers and they have never been redrawn. His story would become the story of the nation. Years later, Chambers would write of his fear that the Communist Party would murder him, as it had murdered so many other apostates, saying, "They must sometimes have thought bit­terly since about their failure to do so."1

Chambers had planned his break for months. In addition to the practical concern of avoiding a "suicide," leaving the Communist Party was more than "leaving one house and occupying another."2 He was "reversing the faith of an adult lifetime, held implacably to the point of criminality."3 When he took up the cause of the free world against the

Communists, he said he had moved to a house "manifestly in collapse and the caretakers largely witless."4 But he had no choice. Agoniz­ingly, he had come to the realization that he had been working on the side of evil - for terror, torture, fascism, and death. A fellow ex-Communist, Walter Krivitsky, would force him to state the painful truth out loud: The Soviet government was a fascist government and it had been from the beginning.

Krivitsky was the first to tell Chambers of Stalin's feverish efforts to align with Hitler in 1939. The proposed alliance, Chambers said, was "thoroughly justified" as Communist strategy, but from "any human point of view, the pact was evil."5 As Chambers imagined the coming conflict, he rued that conservatives would be "all but helpless." He said the fate of the free world could only be decided in a struggle be­tween the Communists and the ex-Communists, for "no other has been so deeply into the total nature of the evil with which communism threatens mankind."6 After meeting with Krivitsky, Chambers said, "I knew that, if the opportunity offered, I would inform."7 Soon there­after, the Hitler-Stalin Pact was signed. Days later, as Hitler's armies marched into Poland, Chambers was on a plane from New York to Washington, B.C.

A friend of Chambers had arranged a private audience with Presi­dent Roosevelt's assistant secretary of state, Adolf Berle. After dinner at Berle's home, Chambers spent several hours detailing the Commu­nist espionage network of which he had been a part. He gave Berle the names of at least two dozen Soviet spies working for the Roosevelt administration. Among them was Alger Hiss, a top State Department official, as well as his brother Donald Hiss. Berle urgently reported to President Roosevelt what Chambers had said, including the warning

about Alger Hiss. The president laughed and told Berle to go f----- himself.8 No action was ever taken against Hiss. To the contrary, Roose­velt promoted Hiss to the position of trusted aide who would go on to advise him at Yalta. Chambers's shocking and detailed reckoning of Soviet agents in high government positions eventually made its way to William C. Bullitt, former ambassador to Russia and confidant of the president. Alarmed, Bullitt brought the news to Roosevelt's attention. He, too, was laughed off.9

Berle also told Dean Acheson, then Roosevelt's undersecretary of the Treasury, what Chambers had said about the Hiss brothers. As Berle described the meeting, Acheson "said he had known the family and these two boys since childhood and could vouch for them absolutely."10 When Acheson later became assistant secretary of state, he immediately requested Donald Hiss as his assistant. Berle again stepped in to remind Acheson that Chambers had identified Donald Hiss as a Soviet agent. Acheson investigated the matter much as Democrats investigated Paula Jones's claims against Bill Clinton. He asked Hiss if he was a Communist, Hiss denied it, and Acheson sum­marily announced that "the matter was closed."11 The Democrats' non­chalance about Soviet agents on their staffs was scandalous. It would be as if President Bush were promoting Islamic terrorists after being informed they were members of al-Qaeda.

Years later, Berle would soft-pedal the Democrats' promotion of two traitors with an inane straw-man argument: "The idea that these two Hiss boys . . . were going to take over the United States govern­ment did not strike me as any immediate danger." It was also not an "immediate danger" that al-Qaeda was going to "take over the United States' government." It still might not be wise for the U.S. government to employ them. As even Berle admitted, "We were all trying not to tell anything that ought not be told, and there were pretty consistent leaks whenever anything went through [Alger Hiss's] office."12

In 1948, almost a full decade later, when he was working at Time magazine, Chambers was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee, more famously known as HUAC. Cham­bers again named Hiss as a Soviet agent. HUAC showed somewhat more heightened interest in this fact than had the Democratic administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Here at last, Chambers said, was "a force that was fiercely, albeit clumsily, fighting Communism."13 Rumors had long dogged Hiss, but as Chambers said, "for the first time, a man had stood up and said, 'I was there, I knew them. The rumors are facts.' "14 and Adlai Stevenson offered to be character witnesses for Hiss. Eleanor Roosevelt said she believed Hiss. Truman's Justice Department asked the FBI to determine whether Chambers had ever been institutional­ized for mental illness and began investigating Chambers for perjury.22 On one hand, a Soviet spy might have been turning over vital govern­ment secrets to the nation's mortal enemy. But on the other hand, a Harvard man was having his reputation besmirched.

HUAC's investigation could no longer be held behind closed doors. When Chambers pleaded with Nixon to continue holding hear­ings away from public view, Nixon warned Chambers: "The Depart­ment of Justice is all set to move in on you in order to save Hiss. They are planning to indict you at once. The only way to head them off is to let the public judge for itself which one of you is telling the truth. That is your only chance."23 As Nixon said, "If the American people under­stood the real character of Alger Hiss, they would boil him in oil."

Nixon was right. The public saw and believed Chambers. Despite the press's relentless attacks on HUAC, in September 1948 - one month after Truman had scoffed at the Hiss probe as a "red herring" - a Gallup poll showed four out of five Americans supported HUAC.24 Three out of four disagreed with Truman's charge that Republicans were "playing politics" with the hearings. This included 71 percent of Democrats surveyed, but - judging by their coverage - 0 percent of reporters.

Hiss had indignantly demanded that Chambers make his charges outside of a congressional hearing room and thus subject himself to a suit for slander. Chambers would soon have the opportunity to do just that. He agreed to be interviewed on the radio program Meet the Press. As Chambers described the program, it was "enlivened by an unprecedented personal venom," consisting of "a savage verbal assault and battery on the guest, without pause and with little restraint or decency."25 One of the hosts - and three of the four were hysterical Hiss partisans - dared Chambers to restate his charges on the radio. Chambers said, "Alger Hiss was a Communist and may be now." He then added, "I do not think Mr. Hiss will sue me for slander or libel."

For an unusually protracted period of time, Chambers was right. To the bewilderment of his supporters, Hiss did not leap at his chance to sue Chambers. This was despite the fact that he had powerful friends eagerly offering pro bono legal assistance, investigative work, and money of mysterious origin.26 Yet Hiss waited an interminable three months before finally being shamed into suing Chambers for slander. Hiss's legal team leapt to action in classic Democratic fashion. They launched sadistic attacks on Chambers, claiming he was mentally unstable and a homosexual.

One member of Hiss's psychiatric team worked up a unique theory of Chambers's insanity based on a book Chambers had translated, Class Reunion. The psychiatrist found amazing similarities between Chambers and a fictional character from the translated work, who neu­rotically makes false charges against a more talented and brilliant classmate, ruining his life. Chambers's only connection to the book was that he had been paid to translate it. This is what Chambers did for a living - he translated books not chosen by him. As historian Allen Weinstein said, Chambers had also once translated Bambi; that did not prove he "was a gun-shy deer."27 But Hiss's Harvard-educated legal team was captivated by the harebrained theory. Ed McLean, a named partner at Debevoise, Plimpton & McLean and a Harvard man, urged Hiss to alert FBI investigators to the Class Reunion theory.28 Harvard Law School is precisely what it used to be.

In their depositions of Chambers, Hiss's lawyers seemed unduly interested in Chambers's brother, Richard, who had committed suicide years earlier. Hiss attorney William Marbury maliciously referred to Chambers's deceased brother only as "Dickie." Chambers was per­plexed by the obsessive focus on his brother. Only much later did Chambers learn why. It was, as Chambers said, "a story so inconceiv­able that it seemed to me that only a mind deformed by something more than malevolence could have excreted it. What kind of beasts am I dealing with? The fact that men and women could be found to credit and spread a lie so disgusting and so cruel remains the measure of the Hiss defense and the pro-Hiss psychosis."29 Chambers says no more about the matter. Allen Weinstein reports in his book Perjury that the Hiss defense team was ready to launch the theory that Chambers had a homosexual relationship with his own brother and that "the moti­vation of Chambers in making his accusations against Hiss" was that "Chambers had a subconscious impulse to be reunited with his brother in death."30

Though Hiss's investigators logged many hours in their quest to portray Chambers as a nutcase, they came up dry. This was despite sympathetic mental health professionals anxious to take up Hiss's case. Hiss told his brother about one psychiatrist who "feels so strongly about my case that he would not have allowed considerations of professional ethics to play any part in his actions."31 In the end, nei­ther Hiss's investigators nor the FBI found any evidence that Cham­bers was ever hospitalized for mental illness.

One of Hiss's little helpers was Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson. There is evidence that Acheson was furtively passing gov­ernment secrets to Hiss's lawyers to help with his case. Allen Wein­stein writes in Perjury, "Whether or not Acheson, once he rejoined State, provided the Hiss defense with confidential departmental information in the midst of the Justice Department probe has never been determined, but some officials at State complained to the FBI the fol­lowing year about such practices by the Secretary."32 (Emphasis added.) To be sure, it was never proved, much like the case against 0. J. Simp­son was never "proved." But State Department officials not only be­lieved Acheson was passing on secret information to Hiss's lawyers, but were so appalled that they complained to the FBI about it. It is a sobering thought to realize that, as secretary of state, Acheson was very likely giving confidential State Department information to the legal defense team of a Soviet spy.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   44


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:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2014
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница