In defense of McCarthy

Just going to start at the top and move down. "You have given no evidence, much less proof, that what McCarthy did was illegal." Actually I did. I pointed out that he made his accusations against Annie Lee Moss based on an unsubstantiated source and did not provide her due process (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Which is illegal. His punishment came in his censorship (which was approved by an overwhelming majority of the Senate). These congressional hearings have incorporated the same principles that guide our own judiciary system which McCarthy violated. "browbeating tactics" of people who "were not involved in the infiltration of our government." Surely, however, this is tantamount to admitting that there WAS infiltration of our government? " This is a huge fallacy in itself. Pointing out that people were being harassed for something they didn't do in NO WAY suggests that such people exists. No such admittance was made and I think this argument is based on a false premise. I copied and pasted that speech from the McCarthy wikipedia site. Interesting that you are questioning all of my sources and I've been taking all of your claims on good faith (such as the claims that the CPA was a front for Moscow... cause you haven't provided any documentation suggesting this). "McCarthy, in his accusations, generally did not go further than to point out that "such and such was a known member of the Communist Party." Even his liberal contemporaries knew that the Communist Party WAS a front group for Moscow, which is why they denied the truthfulness of his charges altogether, instead of taking your approach. " Both of these sentences reveal a sincere misunderstanding of McCarthy's charges. It's important that you realize that he wasn't merely pointing out that there were members of the CPA, he wanted their careers stripped of them on public television because they were Soviet agents. Sometimes this resulted in criminal treason charges (rarely though because again his sources were rarely substantiated). These accusations were destructive by nature and led to ruined lives and suicides (which I see you've chosen not to address). You also continue to assert that the CPA was a "front for moscow" and you can claim that as much as you would like but until you justify these statements with some sources I can't really take you terribly seriously. The Soviet government contributed 50,000 (by 1954 at the height of McCarthyism) dollars to the CPA's 75,000 members. Are you suggesting that 50,000 dollars is enough to buy out and control an entire political party? His accusations were that these people were infiltrating our government and reporting back to Moscow. Being a member doesn't prove this! It was a ridiculous generalization about people based upon their political ideology that fed off of an anti-communist sentiment in the country. Journalist Edward Murrow describes this phenomenon: "His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men" You cannot confuse dissent with disloyalty, which is exactly what you are doing. The United States government supports democratic parties all over the world and so did the Soviet Union. This doesn't mean that they are employing spies all over the world! Does anyone else see how ridiculous this is? Am I taking crazy pills? "This is absolutely true under normal circumstances, but if a member of Al-Qaeda wanted to become a member of the government, we would hardly let him." This is a joke right? There isn't an Al Qaeda political party in this country with 75,000 members. Al-Qaeda wants to see the complete destruction of Western thought and political ideology by destroying the United States. The CPA had no such intentions, they wanted to incite political change. This is a flawed analogy on almost every level and it doesn't deserve to be in a debate of this caliber. "Asking Davies to resign was, on one level or another, proof that Dulles thought Davies was guilty." Absolutely not! Davies was a lowly foreign advisor whose patriotism is a matter of public record. However, a foreign advisor can hardly stand up against a Senator of McCarthy's popularity at the time. People were scared to speak out publicly against McCarthy (Eisenhower) let a lone confront him over a foreign advisor. It's a testament to McCarthy's fear based power over the government, people were scared to stand up to him. I can't believe you would assume that it is because he WAS a Soviet spy even though I have presented documentation which refutes this claim. Again you're making assumptions with no support beyond your own opinion. Your Annie Lee Moss arguments depend on sweeping generalizations. You point out that she subscribes to a socialist newspaper and that her job was very important. Does this make her a Soviet spy? You're missing the malicious or anti-American intent or the treasonous undercover work. Annie Lee Moss was an American and there was no reason to question her loyalty to this country. You point out that she could be a major security risk but was she? Did McCarthy prove that she leaked information to the Soviet or that she was connected to them in anyway? No he didn't. You argue that the CPA's higher officials had connections to Moscow (yet to be substantiated) but does this really mean that they all were under the control of Moscow? Not at all. Those kind of assumptions are unwarranted and irrational. There are many examples of the United States funding and supporting political parties in other countries. Anastasio Somoza Garcï¿½a was the dictator of Nicaragua and we spent significant resources supporting his political party because he was an anti-Communist ruler in Central America. We identified with his ideology (at least in regard to Communism) and we saw it in our best interest to support him, so we did. Support in itself doesn't mean that we "control" a country by any means. His decisions were still his own and often times went in direct contradiction to American policy. Thats one example, tell me if you need more. Since this topic lends itself to a general assessment of Joseph McCarthy I'd also like to mention that his alcoholism was a severe and prevalent part of his life while he was in the senate which was confirmed to have brought upon the acute hepatitis that killed him. It was reported that McCarthy suffered from cirrhosis of the liver and was frequently hospitalized for alcoholism. Numerous eyewitnesses, including Senate aide George Reedy and journalist Tom Wicker, have reported finding him alarmingly drunk in the Senate. Journalist Richard Rovere (1959) wrote: "He had always been a heavy drinker, and there were times in those seasons of discontent when he drank more than ever. But he was not always drunk. He went on the wagon (for him this meant beer instead of whiskey) for days and weeks at a time. The difficulty toward the end was that he couldn't hold the stuff. He went to pieces on his second or third drink. And he did not snap back quickly." I bring this up because his addiction was so severe that it did affect his professional life. Which should be taken into consideration when we evaluate his merit as a politician. Another great round, I'd love to debate you again sometime soon! -the killa