Now this is a hardcore conservative... or maybe not

She actually say that?[/quote]

She’s been devoting an incredible amount of effort the past couple of years to “correcting” McCarthy’s image, yeah. Trying to make people “see” that there really was a vast communist conspiracy, that McCarthy was a good and noble patriot, that all of the excesses weren’t his fault, and that it’s traitor democrats who have sullied his noble image. Freaking insanity.[/quote]

Yikes. Yep.

McCarthy? A paranoid who saw leftist conspiracy everywhere and tried to use it to further his career? Now WHY would she like HIM? :lol:

Coulter actually wrote her last book on it. Haven’t read it, but I can probably do without.

Oh, and the popular conception of the era of McCarthyism could certainly use a more balanced evaluation than the self-righteous treatment it is usually given.

[quote=“Lizard_King”]

Coulter actually wrote her last book on it. Haven’t read it, but I can probably do without.

Oh, and the popular conception of the era of McCarthyism could certainly use a more balanced evaluation than the self-righteous treatment it is usually given.[/quote]

Somehow I suspect a balanced evaluation is unlikely from a woman who states, with utter seriousness, that all liberals are traitors who hate America more than Al Qaeda.

We did have communist spies in the period, and a couple in the state department. That this somehow proves McCarthy right - who was just making shit up - is wrong.

McCarthy had many problems, but probably the biggest was the “witchhunt” factor.

In both Salem centuries ago and the United States of the 1950s, it was not clear who was to blame and who was not to blame. This resulted in confusion.

From this confusion (again in both cases, the situations are analogous) emerged opportunism. So everybody that hated their “neighbor” or business rival ratted them out. Since it was not clear who was to blame and Fear was the order of the day, even an entirely empty claim was specious and people however innocent they might have been were in danger.

Also, the degree of paranoia was silly. Communism in the US had not risen to a level where leaders became public and thus could be destroyed. So WAIT for that to happen and THEN bring out the timber and bonfire instead of an idiotic campaign built on fear and ignorance.

Also, this sort of thing should not have been made public. The FBI and CIA should have been on the case. People who were proven Communists could have been dealt with, Behind the Scenes. The idiocy of Public Hearings on Communism is surprising even to someone like me who routinely calls humans idiots.

“Dealt with?” Was it ever illegal to belong to the communist party?

From http://www.aclu-mass.org/general/civillibtimescrisis.html

“After the end of the war anti-communist fears were manipulated in a war against the trade-union movement. An Immigration Act was past in October 1918 that provided for the exclusion of anarchists and the deportation of immigrants holding radical or revolutionary ideas.”

“The Red Scare was not just fought at the level of the federal government. By 1952 47 (of 48.) states had passed anti-subversion statutes, over thirty had laws against sedition, laws requiring loyalty oaths from teachers, and may barred “subversives” from public employment. Six states had functioning state un-American activities committees. Two states outlawed the Communist Party. In 1950 Michigan imposed life imprisonment for writing or speaking subversive words.
By the late 50’s the anticommunism consensus was breaking down, thanks to rulings by the Supreme Court under Justice Earl Warren, to Democratic Party majorities in both Houses and to the Civil Rights Movement on the streets.”

To answer your question, it is illegal to belong to the Communist Party during times when American leadership becomes concerned for its own safety with respect to Communism, as history has proven on multiple occasions. When Communism is powerless in the United States it is perfectly legal to belong.

Christ. And that’s what Coulter’s now trying to white wash. Great choice for your pundit and spokeswoman, folks.

How come the Oil Reich hasn’t given Fraulein Coulter an official job yet?

Using non-Iraqi companies to rebuild Iraq isn’t foreign investment, at least not in the way the term is usually used. It might be called foreign investment in public infrastructure, but that won’t be enough to strengthen a capitalist economy (although rebuilding infrastructure is, of course, necessary.)

What is needed is investment in Iraqi companies, who will ultimately be the driving force in the Iraqi economy; it will also help greatly in stabilizing the country. The current arrangement is better for the U.S. economy.

You still have to sign an affidavit that you’re not trying to overthrow the US government to get a job with the state of Oklahoma. I know this because they make college students who work for the University sign it.

Are you for real? Why, this country was founded in a revolution!!

Right. But that happy arrangement you describe in your second paragraph can only come about with that (as you note) necessary first step. Without some semblance of stability, which will require a strong military presence for the near future, you cannot have either.

Well, Iraqi society isn’t exactly pre-industrial, and they built most of the stuff that was blown up. There is nothing to suggest that Iraqi companies wouldn’t have the capability to rebuild it as well, given funding. Killing two birds with one stone, or whatever the expression is; rebuilding the infrastructure and aiding the Iraqi economy.

You don’t just need a purely military presence, but more of a security presence, a stabilizing presence. The military can fulfill that function, but troops are mainly trained to kill enemy troops, not to police, as various unfortunate incidents during the occupation has illustrated.

I don’t think we fundamentally disagree on this, rather it is a relatively small question of degree. Unless I am misreading you, you are for the same sort of investment that I favour, except you want it to happen now. I think that is somewhat unrealistic, because while Iraq is not pre-industrial it doesn’t really have industry in the conventional sense that is available for Marshall Plan-style aid (I am assuming you would agree that most private investors are unlikely to be interested at this point). Decades of Baathist crony mismanagement does not translate easily to the sort of industries I think we would both like to see in Iraq.

You don’t just need a purely military presence, but more of a security presence, a stabilizing presence. The military can fulfill that function, but troops are mainly trained to kill enemy troops, not to police, as various unfortunate incidents during the occupation has illustrated.

I completely agree, and I really wish more of a visible effort where being made in that direction. Certainly at some point the marginal returns on more of a military presence become negligible, which is why I am skeptical of the possibilities if the original Joint Chief’s assessment were applied (250k) at this point.
But that does not justify a paranoid pseudomarxist response to the troop presence in general (like Chet’s).