Comments from the darkness where only a den of iniquity exists or perhaps I'm in the White House.
REVISIONIST BUSH HISTORY 101
Published on May 11, 2005 By Chuck In Current Events
I was a child during the 1950s, but vividly remember the Army-McCarthy televised hearings. The black and white only telecast added to the drama already unfolding on the small screen. Let me briefly recap for those of you who don't recall this not so glorious period in American history.

The post-WWII period was one of great anticipation, readjustment and then fear. Anti-communist fears were honed for public consumption and Russia took the top spot as evil purveyor. Politicians tripped over each other to testify of their communist despisal and the United States couched itself for the long cold war period. Winston Churchill spoke of an "iron curtain" descending upon Europe and post-war insecurity was translated into fear of another war with communist powers. The House Unamerican Activities Committee and Senate Internal Security Committee vied for top publicity billing until something unique occurred.

Joe McCarthy was an obscure senator from Wisconsin who had tried various ploys to gain national attention, but had failed to achieve. McCarthy's greatest fear was not being reelected and he desperately sought an issue which would propell him firmly into the minds of Wisconsin voters and another term in Washington D.C. He found this issue in a Washington restaurant while having dinner with some friends and it was known as communism.

The senator realized fear could be manipulated to achieve many ends and he delivered a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, which was gleaned from a letter several years old. This document had listed ideological suspects in the State Department many of which had already left their jobs or were merely contract employees. McCarthy cited 205 card carrying communits in the State Department at Wheeling and then changed this to 81 in Salt Lake City. Realizing he had nothing to back up his charges, McCarthy contuously shifted the responsibility onto President Harry Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson who the Senator offered to deliver names if State personnel files would be opened to senate investigators. Both Truman and Acheson refused, but McCarthy had found his issue and took maximum advantage of it. His techniques gave birth to a Congress full of commie hunters who used questionable techniques in their search for subsversisves. Sadly, the commie bating enthusiasm also lapped over into election chicanery.

Great drama unfolded as charges and counter-charges rocked the capitol. The iron fist of fear spread upon this great land causing many to be chastised simply for thinking or talkng differently. McCarthy leveled charges against whomever he felt and further argued the 5th amendment to the Constituion was not something good Americans would use it to protect themselves from self incrimination. His idea of a good citizen was simply agreement with him and naming names regardless. Celebrities were blackballed; foreign policy makers sacked; and rampant fear blurred lines of reason. No one was safe even the person who converted the big lie into a simple reality could become suspected.

McCarthy became so cocky that he openly challenged President Dwight Eisenhower, a fellow Republican, for not persecuting subversives and opening files to Congress. Eisenhower was a famous WWII general, very protective of the army and reluctant to tackle the Wisconsin senator headon. The spat grew out of drafting of a minor McCarthy committee member named David Schine into the army. Schine was the son of a wealthy hotel chain owner and really had no intellectual claim other than authoring a mistake laden pamphlet on communism. McCarthy was impressed, however, and soon hired the youth to work with him and a committee attorney, Roy Cohn. Cohn and Schine were belittled by world journalists as they hedgehopped across Europe seeking seditious books in US Information Agency libraries while engaging in antic reflecting negatively on US image. Later, Cohn's vindictive actions to stop Schine's draft into the Army transformed into threats to obtain a commission for him which drew the senator into the Army-McCarthy hearings. Everything was paramount to an army conspiracy to Cohn when he found generals would not grant his every whim for Schine. The draftee was given preferential treatment with phone calls, liberty passes and excuses from training in inclement weather. Cohn resented the army for not complying and countered with charges the army was trying to hold Schine hostage to stymy investigations into massive spying at a New Jersey army communications facility. The sage exploded onto the natinal arena when Cohn could not convince any branch into giving Schine an officer commission and later the army released transcripts of Cohn's vituperative phone calls to Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens.

Thus, the hearings unfolded and America was exposed to the true nature of Joe McCarthy. Television came of age during this period and the Senator was seen consistently interupting testimony, mocking witnesses, and attempting to push his type of false patriotism upon the public-where charges are interpreted as truth; threats and innuendoes replace inquiry; and fear replaces any hint of civility. It was a troubling period for my young mind and equally baffling for many that were blackballed in employment for hearsay information.

President Bush recently brought up this ugly spectre with his reference to a worn right wing charge the 1945 Yalta Conference sold out eastern Europe to the USSR. What he neglected to point out was the other leaders there who also agreed: Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin. Secondly, Czechoslovakia was coerced and then legally voted to align with the Soviets. Further, the 1953 rebellions in Poland and East Germany were not given any support by the United States. Hungarians still have negative feelings regarding the Eisenhower Administration failing to keep promises made in their revolutinary quest to free Hungary. America had become a nation that promised much to for potential freedom loving people, then failed to support those efforts.

Why did President Bush bring up this subject? He seems to be courting the right wing again after losing a great deal of support in recent weeks. The President had become cozy with Vladimir Putin, Russia's leader, butted into Ukraine politics and overall was not particularly effective. Now there is a great need to make up for lost time and true to form, the ideological stops were pulled out to generate sound bites to possibly attract those of the political and religious far right.

Its ironic the President would mention this in lieu of his own relatives being legally ousted from lucrative financial dealings with the Nazis during World War II. Both were cited for violating the Enemy Trading Act in 1943 following years of supplying the Nazi war machine with needed logistics such as petroleum, lubricants and cash. Ironically, Prescott Bush was later elected to congress and Herbert Walker continued in the financial world as if nothing had ocurred.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia resisted the intense Russification efforts to maintain their own language and culture. It is a tribute to their dedication and spirt that this occurred and the people cannot be lauded enough. The President, however, failed in his efforts to achieve some adulation by bringing up a worn out reason everyone has discussed since 1945. He should have been more creative, original and studied the three cultures more instead of his disbelieving tripe.

The is here time for true international leadership in this hectic world and it has become readily apparent neither President George Bush or Secretary of State Condolezza Rice have the necessary knowledge, education and languages to be effective. Sooner or later, either or both will pull a difficult gaffe and there goes the diplomatic service.

Bush's Yalta remarks only tend to reinforce the negative stereotype of his administration's actions associated with McCarthy. The secretiveness, paybacks, scandals, buying journalists, false newsports, etc., all smack of McCarthyism and in the long run will backfire on them. A republican majority in congress only adds more fuel to the fire that will eventually engulf this administration with more scandal and subsequent American outrage.

Comments
on May 11, 2005

Bush's Yalta remarks only tend to reinforce the negative stereotype of his administration's actions associated with McCarthy. The secretiveness, paybacks, scandals, buying journalists, false newsports, etc., all smack of McCarthyism and in the long run will backfire on them. A republican majority in congress only adds more fuel to the fire that will eventually engulf this administration with more scandal and subsequent American outrage.

I think you assume too much.  Bush was not trying to repaint history, he was pointing out a sad aspect of what the western allies did to eastern europe after the war.  But being in Politics, he could not stomp Russia (as they were the host) and since it was foreign, he did not want to piss off the British any more than he already has.

Not enumerating all the co-conspirators is not the same as the kangaroo courts of McCarthyism.  Indeed, the only scandal with Bush so far is in the fact that some people hate him and wish him ill (not want to defeat him in the arena of ideas, but hate him and want him assassinated).

To equate Bush with McCarthyism is better than calling him Hitler or a Nazi, but only by a small degree.  At least with the former, both were Republican Americans, so that at least is a connection.  But other than standing on his relgiious beliefs, an anethma to the loony left, he has not created a theocracy, nor purged any ranks of non-believing liberals.  The latter are the ones screaming 'America, Love it or leave it', and then failing to live up to their promises.

If you look at Bush through the screed of the left, you shall surely find evil.  If you look at him through the eyes of a curious historian, you will find an average president that is no better or worse than most of his immediate predecessors.  Except he is running a relatively scandal free administration after one that can only be described as the second coming of US Grant.

on May 11, 2005
Ironic that former (late) President Reagan was the president of the Actors Guild during the days of the McCarthy era. reagan employed the same methods as McCarty, naming alleged communists in the movie industry. As a result of both of these evil men, many lives in the United States were ruined.
It was truly a dark period for the American people, some of whom still suffer today for the doings of those bastards.
on May 11, 2005
First of all, thanks for responding to my writing.

Interestingly enough, I am neither right nor left; strictly an independent in thought and action.

Secondly, I believe one should state their bias as a preface to their writing. Absolving President Bush of any hint of scandal is certainly not exactly an objective statement since his administration has been bogged down with scandal ranging from outing a CIA operative, the Iraq war entry, Halliburton,lack of necessary logistics in Iraq, The Jeff Gannon/Guckert Affair, his absence from the Texas ANG for a year, etec. All together, we are looking at a total of 37 separate fiascos. Of course, the latest is the British MI6 memo indicating collusion between Bush and BlairThi on entry events creating events leading to war. If validated, this is an impeachable offense.

President Bush was not attempting to be objective in his remarks, but just the opposite by inferring President Rooselvelt and Prime Minister Churchill sold out Eastern Europe to the Soviets. This overt simplification of history leads one to assume a McCarthy principle prominent in the 1950s, democrats will not stand up to communism. The President also failed to mention this was on a diplomatic level only and Stalin used military means to subjugate these nations with the exception of Czechoslovakia. Stalin was obsessed with created a Cordon Sanitaire, a buffer zone which would be invaded by the West, but sufficient defense would give the Russian Military time to prepare for the onslaught. Regardless of agreements, Stalin was going to take these nations due to the treaties the United States had already broken with the Soviet Union immediately after World War II. He was incensed at the idea Truman would have the nerve to order all reconstruction aid stopped after the war. The President also went contrary to President Ronald Reagan who stated: "Let me state emphatically, we reject any interpretation of the Yalta agreement that suggests American consent for the division of Europe into spheres of influence," said the late President in August 1984. "On the contrary, we see that agreement as a pledge by the three great powers to restore full independence, and to allow free and democratic elections in all countries liberated from the Nazis after World War II."

By the way, I am a historian in this area and feel ideology should not have an impact upon the truth search. President Bush has indicated by word and deed he is guilty of this sin as is another prominent right wing rogue, Pat Buchanan who authored a column today echoing Bush's comments.

on May 12, 2005

Secondly, I believe one should state their bias as a preface to their writing. Absolving President Bush of any hint of scandal is certainly not exactly an objective statement since his administration has been bogged down with scandal ranging from outing a CIA operative, the Iraq war entry, Halliburton,lack of necessary logistics in Iraq, The Jeff Gannon/Guckert Affair, his absence from the Texas ANG for a year, etec. All together, we are looking at a total of 37 separate fiascos. Of course, the latest is the British MI6 memo indicating collusion between Bush and BlairThi on entry events creating events leading to war. If validated, this is an impeachable offense.

This is your pond and you are free to say anything you want (even in my little pond as well).  However, if you were being intellectually honest, you would know that there are no scandals, just allegations that have proven to be not true, and mistakes that have been made.  A lack of intel is not a scandal unless the fault laid in an action taken by the current administration (it was traced to the handcuffs that the Clinton DOJ put on the CIA).

The MI6 memo is an opinion, and given the views of the author not unexpected (had to save Blairs butt some way).  And even it is not a scandal, just an embarrassment if true (which is open to doubt).

As for Roosevelt and Churchill, they DID sell eastern europe out!  I am glad he was not so caught up in the PC world as to try to soft peddle that.

Many things can be scandalous, only because the use of the adjective does not indicate that the noun is indeed fact. The adjective is an opinion, the noun indicates a fact in evidence. What you would call 'scandalous', may indeed be for you, but it does not by itself indicate a scandal.