Joe McCarthy and 9/11
Excerpted from "CIA knew where Eichmann was hiding..." in today's NY Times:
"norman jw goda, an ohio u historian who reviewed the cia material, said it showed in greater detail than previously known hoiw the cia aggressively recruited former nazi officers after the war. in particular, he said, the documents fill in the story of the 'catastrophic' soviet penetration of the gehlen organization, the postwar west german intelligence service sponsored by the united states army and then thge cia.
"mr god described the case of heinz felfe, a former ss officer who was bitter over the allied firebombing of his native city, dresden, and secretly worked for the kgb. mr felfe rose in the gehlen organization to oversee counterintelligence, a soviet agent placed in charge of combating soviet espionage."
Joe McCarthy warned of extenstive communist penetration of the cia, a warning that some believe ultimately led to his downfall. the cia had a secret unit dedicated to countering mccarrthy.
The point here is that mccarthy was substantially correct about the fact of extensive soviet penetration of our system, though he was not necessarily right aboiut every detail.
these days of course anyone who points to treason at high levels is smeared as a conspiracy theorist [see "who's crazy now?" by paul krugman (just google it)]. yet u.s. history shows that treason is not necessarily an occasional aberrent act but may be part of an organized covert (and semi-covert) system.
some of mccarthy's harshest detractors were pretty shady. take corliss lamont, the rich humanist atheist socialist who also was an arch apologist for the soviet union. and then there was the editor of the new republic who failed to mention that he had been one of the state dept reds mccarthy had been talking about.
these days we have extensive evidence of treason on 9/11 and a full complement of government shills determined to muddy the waters and confuse the public. yet, as the mccarthy controversy shoiws, it's possible for the "bad guy" to be right. so if treeason is possible in the fifties, why is it supposedly sio very unlikelythese days?
now some accuse bush and cheney of mccarthyism because of their attempts to browbeat the public into conformity. but bush and cheney have done everything possible to keep the lid on the facts of treason.