Sunday, December 16, 2007

I Hope You Post a Correction!

I Hope You Post a Correction!

I want to thank Mark LaRochelle for an interesting comment (below). Mr. LaRochelle seems to think I wrote the McCarthy article. I just posted long time political insider Tom Roeser's piece of Dec. 14 from Tom to see if there would be any comment.


Personal Asides: The Worst Debate of All-Time... The U. S. Bishops' First Job: Get Rid of the USCCB... Give Joe McCarthy Some Credit-but Easy on the Total Rehab Stuff.

Posted: 14 Dec 2007 05:46 AM CST

In reference to the late Senator Joe McCarthy, you write that “a correspondent urges I review the latest book about him, ‘Blacklisted by History’ by M. Stanton Evans….” But you don’t say whether you actually read the book.

You write that “Tom ‘Tommy the Cork’ Corcoran … moved from being FDR's top political operative to stalwart anti-Communist and friend of Chiang kai-Shek. Tom Corcoran's belief was that Joe was at least 90% right.”

If you read the book, you know that Evans’ estimate of McCarthy’s accuracy matches the one you ascribe here to Corcoran. But in mentioning Corcoran, it seems odd that you do not refer to the book’s extensive discussion of the FBI wiretap logs that record Corcoran’s 1945 conspiracy -- with FDR White House aide and Soviet agent Lauchlin Currie -- to fix the grand jury in the Amerasia case, in order to get anti-Chiang Kai-shek State Department official John Stewart Service off the hook for passing government documents on China to the pro-Red Philip Jaffe.

You credit McCarthy with labeling Owen Lattimore “an articulate instrument of the Communist conspiracy in America.” If you read the book, you know that in this, McCarthy was merely quoting the report of William Jenner’s Senate Internal Security subcommittee (not McCarthy’s own Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations).

You write that “by insisting that Lattimore had been Hiss' boss Joe was in error.” If you read the book, you know that Evans agrees with you on that point.

You write that “Gen. George Marshall was totally wrong on his evaluation of Mao but that doesn't make him a com-symp.” As you know if you read the book, Evans agrees with you on this point as well.

You write that “Murrow showed there were two Annie Lee Mosses.” If you read the book, you know this is false: There was only one Annie Lee Moss in Washington, DC: the Pentagon code clerk who was identified by the Communist Party’s own records as a member of the Communist Party.

You write that Evans tries to “to whitewash Cohn and Schine.” This is false. Evans shows that Cohn’s intervention regarding Schine was a major misstep. You write of these two that “their trip was a rather futile one, seeking to find pro-Commie books in embassy libraries” This is a reversal of the record, noted in the book. The committee found the USIA libraries in liberated Europe -- established by Congress as a psy-ops program to counter Soviet disinformation – had been stuffed by officials like Theodore Kaghan with some 30,000 pro-Soviet, anti-American works, by such titans of American letters as Earl Browder and William Z. Foster.

You write that “Evans' book errs when it seeks to completely exonerate McCarthy from charges of political overkill,” that Evans displays “zeal to clear everything about McCarthy,” and that he attempts “to whitewash Joe,” but you do not quote where Evans does this. In fact, he does not. Evans does not flinch from describing McCarthy’s many flaws and errors.

You write that Evans writes “without showing indebtedness to others,” fails “to acknowledge other sources whose material he takes credit for,” and “fails to give due academic credit to others including Ron Radosh, adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute whose scholarship Evans appropriates without citation.” This is utterly false. In a tendentious review in National Review, Radosh falsely accuses Evans of plagiarizing a 1996 book on Amerasia by Harvey Klehr and Radosh. If you read Evans’ book, you know that this charge is false, because Evans’ work is cited directly from the FBI’s Amerasia file, which he obtained in 1986. Indeed, in that 1996 book, Klehr and Radosh criticize Evans for citing this very file as “vindication” of McCarthy, in an article in Human Events – in 1986! It is hard to imagine how Evans plagiarized their book a decade before it was written.

This last charge is far too serious to be made in such an off-hand way, without evidence. I hope you post a correction.

Best wishes,
Mark LaRochelle
Manager of Information Services
Education and Research Institute

P.S. Sorry for the anonymous post. Blogger rejects my comments unless I click "anonymous." Probably because I have cookies or Java turned off, or something.