Semi-Daily Journal

Very much off topic - Look at the London Times online report on the Rumsfeld session in Congress.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-740830,00.html

A litany of statements that contradict his past statements. then compare it to the US coverage. Our media is a disgrace.

One of the great quotes, certainly, but you've forgotten the attribution. One of the most informative things Dan Quayle has ever said.

One of the great quotes, certainly, but you've forgotten the attribution. One of the most informative things Dan Quayle has ever said.

"A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste
How terrible it is to lose your mind. Or not to have a mind at all. "

Here we have the authenic, arrogant voice of so many shrill liberals. Hitchens's rightward move can't be because he changed his views in response to new information or developments in world affairs. It must be because his mind is collapsing. Every time I read something like this, I lengthen my estimate of the duration of conservative hegemony in America.

(Then Coulter says something stupid and I shorten it again).

I don't know, PJ, your statement has enough hyperbole to qualify as weak Coulter.

Hitchens and Horowitz and their ilk are not mysteries. They are, by nature, contrarians—loudmouthed, fuckwitted contrarians—and it should be no surprise to anyone that they'll fail to be intellectually or ideologically consistent. Their worldview is validated on the basis of how much they're pissing other people off because somewhere along the way they internalized the dubious lesson that being a contrarian is the equivalent to having moral integrity.

And that's the generous view. The cynical view is that the object of their contrariness is dependent upon how much money there is in it.

People that stand around year after year and angrily say "what must be said", aggrieved that their words fall upon deaf ears....these are some of the most unreliable intellectual guides that exist. It's not that some few heretics aren't right—they are. It's that the temperament and habits of mind that lead people to this role (or that they acquire after assuming this role) are deeply inimical to the discovery of truth. The validation of angry paranoia becomes the strongest psychological imperative.

As I've seen mild signs of this in Krugman's NYT writing, I've been saddened by it. As I've argued elsewhere, I think it's damaged his credibility, and thus his utility to his cause. Worse, I think it's damaging to his intellect.

That's not to say that all contrarian arguments are suspect, and that we don't always need someone who will point out that the emperor has no clothes. It's that embracing this as one's primary habit of thought is a mistake, and it's a mistake to listen to those who do.

Keith,

Taking the hard intellectual road is over, man! Haven't you been watching Fox News? And reading Fox News wannabes like the New York Times? Getting it right is beside the point. Having a go at somebody you don't like, running up ratings among appropriate demographic groups and staying on the right side of advertisers and their political allies (there's the NYT), those are the core goals of journalists and public thinkers in this day and time.

All the author did is criticize a man with a different set of opinions. There where no facts to back up the article, just counter opinions. Simply re-hashing old arguments will not convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. All the author did is preach to the choir. Why bother writing the article if the only people you have a chance of convincing already agree with you?

"Why bother writing the article if the only people you have a chance of convincing already agree with you?"

Because that's what the people who agree with you expect from you? And they're by far the largest portion of your audience?

And so it goes.

PJ - I know you prefer, and believe its more effective, a gentler form of argument. You may be right. But Dennis Perrin's article seems spot on. I've been reading Hitchens for a long time and I not always agreed with it. I could never ignor it. Now I can. He's going to be the last person alive talking about the Iraqi nuclear weapons. What criticism of Mother Tereasa did he have that doesn't go tenfold for Bush? And yet he's a Bush shill. Perrin seemed sad in his article and I am too. I want my Hitchens back. I suspect that alcohol is involved.

Krugman only sounds shrill because he was practically the only mainstream columnist pointing out the divergence between what the Bush Administration was doing and what they are saying. That's starting to change. He's been in a difficult position but has faced it manfully. He seems to still be competent to perform 1st rate economics and twice a week, except when he's on vacation, excellent columns. Though I'm sure he probably sips a bit of the grape, I'm confident that alcohol is not involve.

Thanks for the reminder that the Left in America resembles nothing so much as a junior high school clique: "Didja hear about Chris, he says he wants to get good grades so he can go to college! Whatta wimp."

And he appeared on TV with Ann Coulter! Has he no shame? Of course, SHE just came up the winner in the Semi-Daily Journal Usual Suspects-Coulter Fact Checking Derby, on the question of "did Harry Truman kiss Stalin's behind over Churchill's Iron Curtain speech".

But that must have been a trick of some kind. If that fool Coulter was right, then what kind of fool am I?

Thanks for the reminder that the right draws the wrong conclusion from a given set of facts. Did you find one fact out of the Coulter book or did you swallow the whole thing?

Thanks for the reminder that the right draws the wrong conclusion from a given set of facts. Did you find one fact out of the Coulter book or did you swallow the whole thing?

Clearly our conservative brethren haven't read Hitchens' staggering attempt to explain why Bush's mode of government by religious zealotry is, like, different from all those other people he abhors who govern by religious zealotry, and attempts to disassociate him from his administration's ongoing crusade to knock down the wall between church and state.

In Vanity Fair. The "Ed Klein Channel Alferd Packer" issue.

It's a mindbender.

Clearly our conservative brethren haven't read Hitchens' staggering attempt to explain why Bush's mode of government by religious zealotry is, like, different from all those other people he abhors who govern by religious zealotry, and attempts to disassociate him from his administration's ongoing crusade to knock down the wall between church and state.

In Vanity Fair. The "Ed Klein Channel Alferd Packer" issue.

It's a mindbender.

Clearly our conservative brethren haven't read Hitchens' staggering attempt to explain why Bush's mode of government by religious zealotry is, like, different from all those other people he abhors who govern by religious zealotry, and attempts to disassociate him from his administration's ongoing crusade to knock down the wall between church and state.

In Vanity Fair. The "Ed Klein Channel Alferd Packer" issue.

It's a mindbender.

Beck, Quayle did NOT say, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." That's the slogan, I believe, of the United Negro College Fund. Quayle was TRYING to say that, but actually came up with, "A waste is a terrible thing to mind." :)

Clearly our conservative brethren haven't read Hitchens' staggering attempt to explain why Bush's mode of government by religious zealotry is, like, different from all those other people he abhors who govern by religious zealotry, and attempts to disassociate him from his administration's ongoing crusade to knock down the wall between church and state.

In Vanity Fair. The "Ed Klein Channel Alferd Packer" issue.

It's a mindbender.

damn, I'm sorry - I swear I only posted that once.

damn, I'm sorry - I swear I only posted that once.

We've all been hammered by the posting software at some point julia - it actually posts it almost immediately but takes forever to then switch back to viewing the comments. Just close it down about 30 seconds after your post and then reopen from the journal and you'll see your post there.

I believe I managed 5 or 6 in a row, once.

"Don't know if Hitch is serious. Yes, his anger about the fatwa is real and understandable. And the fact that the former Cat Stevens, Yusef Islam, endorsed the mullahs' death sentence clearly enraged him. But getting shitty over 'Moonshadow'?"

Well, yes, Dennis Perrin! It simply shows how little regard you have for human life and human freedom, that you even question the reaction.

The late Ryhollah Khomenei was a piece of religious fascist scum. The Left goes apoplectic over men who aren't even 1/10th the religious fascists that Khomenei was (as long as they're Christian). Khomenei actually ordered the MURDER of a man--a writer, and Christopher Hitchens' friend--simply for writing something that gave Khomenei offense.

And Cat Stevens (or whatever he chooses to call himself) didn't merely refuse to condemn the fatwa, he actually *approved* of it. A order to murder a man, simply because he wrote something offensive to a religious fascist. Hitchens is right. @#$% that.

Lowlife -

I wasn't quoting or referring to Perrin's article, but Brad's snide introduction. It's perfectly OK in my book for people to rant and be rude (I've even been known to do it myself on occasion), but they must back it up. And I don't think that article does sufficiently. Changing opinions is not the same as senile decay, or whatever Brad was trying to imply. Of course, Brad may have been writing tongue-in-cheek, in which case I'm being unfair, but I can't see anything to indicate that. I've noticed, and been saddened by, an increase of snideness in his postings recently.

I don't like much of Christopher Hitchens's work either (I have actually met him, for about two seconds at a book signing once, and yes, he was rather over the limit). Reading his "defence" of Orwell (contrarian my foot - is there anybody who needs defending less, as the Economist pointed out?) and his "attack" on Churchill, in which he managed to get not a few facts wrong (including, if I recall, inflating Churchill's alcohol consumption!) made me conclude that he's nothing like as clever as he seems to think he is. (His book on Clinton I thought was rather better, as I always thought Clinton a sleazy crook who betrayed his core constituencies by failing to institute national health care and then signing a badly-thought-out welfare reform bill). I haven't read his writings on Mother Theresa or Salman Rushdie, so can't comment.

Patrick,
Of course, SHE just came up the winner in the Semi-Daily Journal Usual Suspects-Coulter Fact Checking Derby, on the question of "did Harry Truman kiss Stalin's behind over Churchill's Iron Curtain speech".
Not true Patrick, you havbe been amply rebutted on that question. We can repeat the fact checking again but the truth is Truman approved of the iron curtain speech, did not kiss Stalin's ass and the sources you cite indicate precisely thed opposite.

Let me repeat Ann Coultedr lied when she stated as you put it so colorfully that Truman "kissed Stalin's ass."

Hey, Patrick is praising Coulter again! I asked him to keep doing it, and he is! Life is sweet. Don't stop, Patrick. Forge ever onward.
The guy quotes one paragraph meant to show Hitchens as a great writer and commentator. I truly don't see it, nor have I ever. This is independent of my thoughts on Hitchens's character. He does a decent line in bombast though.
I didn't much care for the author either.

Still travelling by barge down that river in Egypt, eh Lawrence. Let's compare "Counsel to the President", Clark Clifford's:

"The President even sent Stalin a message emphasizing that he still held out hope for better relations. He issued an invitation to him to make a similar speech in Missouri, 'for exactly the same kind of reception', and said he would introduce Stalin personally as he had Churchill."

With Coulter's:

" Truman apologized to Stalin and invited him to the United States for a rebutal speech."

Just where is there any contradiction between the two statements, Lawrence?

Once Again Patrick:

I can’t help but note that you have moved from Acheson and Truman being "outraged" at Churchill's speech to kissing Stalin’s ass, to them having "ostentatiously rebuffed" Churchill.

You cite Coulter and its worthwhile looking at what she actually said and the sources you have supplied:
"Most breathtakingly, in March 1946, Truman ostentatiously rebuffed Winston Churchill after his famous 'Iron Curtain' speech in Fulton, Missouri. Immediately after Churchill's speech, Truman instructed his secretary of state (sic) Dean Acheson not to attend a reception for Churchill a week later in New York. Acheson himself was 'deeply troubled by Churchill's call for an Anglo-American partnership that would seem to be directed against Moscow.'9.... Truman apologized to Stalin and invited him to the United States for a rebuttal speech. He graciously offered the mass murderer the services of the U.S.S. Missouri for the trip. Paradoxically, much of this is recounted in a book about the Cold War titled 'Architects of Victory'--which hails Truman as one of those architects."

Here is the story from footnote 9 above (Chace Acheson p. 147):
"Though Acheson forcefully defended Churchill’s point that Washington needed to be firm with Moscow, he was deeply troubled by Churchill’s call for an Anglo-American partnership that would seem to be directed against Moscow."
Coulter leaves out the first part, that Acheson agreed with Churchill’s main point, thus making it appear, "breathtakingly, " that he disagreed with Churchill’s speech. Not true, both Truman and Acheson generally agreed with Churchill.

p. 147 "To show that the administration did not necessarily endorse Churchill’s views, Byrnes asked Acheson not to travel to New York and attend a reception for Churchill."
Note that the actual source says, "not necessarily endorse," rather than in order to "ostentatiously rebuff." The difference means they were sending a subtler message, "this isn’t policy now but it could be." Furthermore, "Truman did not order, " rather Byrnes (who was Secretary of State) asked, another difference. Was this merely a slip of the word processor? Hardly, the tone is one of Truman being very upset with Churchill and having to run out right now and rebuff him. Including this would not have caused Patrick to assume that "Truman was kissing Stalin’s ass."

Then on page 145. According to Chase:
"On April 4, Walter Beddel Smith…Had a late night meeting with Stalin. During the session he presented the session he presented an invitation from Truman to Stalin inviting the Soviet leader to the United States. Despite his tough talk Truman was still hoping for better relations." Here no mention at all is made of an apology, an invitation, nor the Missouri. And this comes from the original source (Footnote cites original State Department Document).

Of course on Page 146 we also have what Truman actually told Churchill about the speech:
"Truman… told Churchill it would do ‘nothing but good’ and surely ‘make a stir.’"
Of course had Coulter cited this she could hardly make the case that Truman wanted to "rebuff" Churchill.

Truman who had set up the speech, was on the platform, and introduced Churchill, was using Churchill as a cat’s paw. He could not say what Churchill said because Churchill was out of office and the speech was thus not a "policy" statement. If Truman had said this it quite possibly could have led to war. Churchill’s speech did reflect the broad outlines of the administration’s thinking-No one but Coulter has ever had any other assessment of the speech.

Patrick says the source of second part of Counter’s statement is the following quote from Clark Clifford. (In an earlier thread Patrick produced only the footnote for Chace).
"'The President even sent Stalin a message emphasizing that he still held out hope for better relations,' recalls Clifford. 'He issued an invitation to him to make a similar speech in Missouri, "for exactly the same kind of reception", and said he would introduce Stalin personally as he had Churchill' "

The first sentence agrees with Chase P 145 above. The second doesn’t. But one can’t help but note what it doesn’t say. No hint of an apology here, no offer of the Missouri, but then I have to check the whole quote out. All Clifford actually says is Truman offered the same venue to Stalin that he had to Churchill.

Coulter, and by extension Patrick, are basically torturing the data until it confesses. An honest reading would hardly justify Coulter’s claim that Truman "ostentatiously rebuffed" Churchill. No contemporary noticed the rebuff, none of Truman’s biographers have, generally no historians of the period have noticed this either. And all were dealing with the same evidence

Truman was sending a bigger message to Stalin. in 1946 Truman forced Soviet troops out of Iran, and stopped Soviet expansionist moves against Turkey. (By sending a naval task force, the Missouri, and the aircraft carrier Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Turkey in a show of force). Stalin, as Truman new by 1946, respected deeds, especially armed ones, far more than words.

Avoiding the paddywagon, I'm just happy to harp on the same string that I've employed ever since Hitch eased himself away from the bar... um, I mean, the Left. He's making the same mistake as Orwell did at the start of the Spanish Civil War: believe that the enemy (that is, 'Islamofascism') is so great a threat, and so in need of a kicking, that it doesn't matter how many of your principles you sacrifice in choosing allies to deliver that kicking. Oh well.

(I saw Hitch at Hay-on-Wye this year, chain-smoking and knocking back the Johnnie Walker as he regaled an audience with impromptu talk. It's painful to see such an erudite and literate man turn into Kingsley Amis, when Martin has appeared to avoid such a fate.)

Actually I thought Hitchens was very good right after Sept 11. I thought his Osama-is-much-worse-than-Ashcroft stance was needed. I confess I enjoyed his venomous assault on Chomsky. I thought, a little bit of moral tonic, was good for us liberals.

But Hitchens is now too drunk on tonic. For me its all quite bizzare,sad and now unbearable. Like lowlife I ignore Hitchens.

Ohh, will someone please tell him his is not Orwell.

"I can’t help but note that you have moved from Acheson and Truman being "outraged" at Churchill's speech to kissing Stalin’s ass, to them having "ostentatiously rebuffed" Churchill."

And I can't help but note that you, Lawrence, have ostentatiously ducked my challenge to point out where Coulter and Clark Clifford differ.

Nor that you have moved from claims such as:

" No somehow Truman's biographer's never discoverwed that gem-Indeed in over 1000 pages, the major biography of Truman has no mention of this-Does this mean that Annie Coulter is a superior scholar? No, she is simply less than honest, disingenious, a liar.

and:

"It appears that Coulter made this entire incident up."

and:

"asnd then inviting Stalin to rebut it-Which is a completely made incident"

and:

" Let me repeat Ann Coulter is a lier."

To quibbling over whether Truman's lying about having read Churchill's speech qualifies as being "infuriated" (not " 'outraged' " as you erroneously put it), and, apparently, whether the rebuff was ostentatious or merely a standard rebuff.

So, I guess we all now agree (in addition to that April follows March) that Clark Clifford's and Coulter's stories are the same. I.e., that Coulter is not a "liar", nor that, " Coulter made this entire incident up".

"Furthermore, 'Truman did not order,' rather Byrnes (who was Secretary of State) asked, another difference. Was this merely a slip of the word processor?"

It appears to be a slip (due to laziness?) on Lawrence's part. I believe I've already quoted this from "Architects of Victory":

" To disassociate his administration even further from Churchill's address, Truman instructed Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson not to attend a reception for Churchill the following week in New York." Which is the version Coulter went with. Again, Coulter is not lying, nor making anything up.

Also, one wonders from reading "Architects" if the rebuff given to Churchill's speech did not embolden Stalin to adventure in Turkey, and create a crisis that many expected to grow into WWIII. Because three weeks after Churchill's speech Stalin withdrew his troops from Iran and sat and watched the Iranian government destroy his friends.

The historian Adam Ullam wrote: "The presumption is overwhelming that it was Churchill's speech that did the trick. With all the debate going on about that speech, the Russians were loath to present additional evidence that its main thesis was sound."

So, when Stalin received Truman's apology/invitation on April 4th, he may have smelled weakness to be exploited.

Patrick,
Like Coulter (and Stalin) you really do like rewriting history rewriting history.
First you cite a source, say that source says this, and when I checked that source, lo and behold, nothing was there.

As far as who told whom what to do, Coulter cites Chace, and I reviewed what Chace said. But aha, you now have a new quote. OK now you cite Clifford, Counsel to the President. We can go there too:

Selective reading (is that a learning disability?) mean you missed what I wrote above, a quality you share with Coulter, I did not duck your challenge- I pointed out exactly where they differed;
COULTER CLAIMS TRUMAN APOLOGIZED TO STALIN -CLIFFORD DOES NOT MENTION IT.
Perhaps I needed to place this in Caps.
These are of a piece:
1) Coulter says Truman was outraged, or disagreed with Churchill’s speech. Not true. The Source she cites makes that plane, Clifford says the same.
2) Coulter says Acheson disagreed with Churchill on a more aggressive stance against the Soviets. Not true again.
3) She claims, that Truman "apologized" to Stalin. Again not true. I can cite your own sources Clifford and Chace but we could look at 1400 others that I’ve found in the library.

4) She claims that Truman "ostentatiously rebuffed" Churchill not true both on the level of adjective and verb.
Consult Clifford, or one of 1400 other authors who have published on Truman and the Cold War, that I found in the library.

Clifford p. 107
"Initial reaction to the speech [Churchill’s] was divided, with the vast majority of editorial and public comment being, in Martin Gilbert’s phrase, ‘almost universally negative’…The Wall Street Journal rejected Churchill’s call."
Of course in the opening phrase of the paragraph you cite accurately describes what was done:
"TRYING TO DISTANCE THE ADMINISTRATION SLIGHTLY…" Of course Clifford is being precise, while Coulter is being deceitful. In response to the unexpected hostility of virtually all public opinion at the time Truman "distanced" but did not "rebuff."
Then there is Churchill’s response, directly above, this paragraph:
"Churchill understanding perfectly the President’s situation and deeply grateful for the gesture that the President had made in introducing him, did not contradict him." This raises the nice little point that the man Coulter says was being rebuffed did not perceive he was being rebuffed.

As far as your ridiculous assertion that somehow, either through an apology he did not make, or something else, emboldened Stalin top take steps anyplace there is ample other evidence. Stalin was already in Iran. Turkey was likewise an issue before the speech. On the day of the speech (March not April) the note was delivered to Stalin that clearly stated there would be no compromise on either Iran or Turkey. The whole process of confrontation was in motion at the time of the Speech.
5) Then there is Coulter’s source "Architects of Victory," and the little question of why it was not footnoted. It was published by the Heritage Foundation and was not among the 1400 books I found in the library. Does it actually say Truman "apologized" to Stalin? Or was that not "among the other things " found in that work. It definitely does not come from Clifford. Of course this raises the question of why she didn’t footnote it. Because she makes it sound like a liberal source, rather than what it is a Heritage Foundation Publication. This is a small and clever bit of disingenuousness.

6) Who actually held the political positions that Coulter tries to hang on Truman?
"The Tougher we get, the tougher the Russian’s will get.. We have no more business in the political affairs of Eastern Europe than Russia has in the political affairs of Latin America, Western Europe, and the United States…To make Britain the key to our foreign policy would in my opinion be the height of folly…. Clifford p. 117

We seem to have found our man! The political position that Coulter is trying to ascribe to Truman belonged to Henry Wallace, Secretary of Commerce at the time. Truman fired him immediately after he made this speech. He ran against Truman in 1948, and cost him three states. What Coulter is doing to Truman is the equivalent of claiming Al Gore had the same political positions as Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. And that is one big, fat, lie.
Of course I’m not the only one that is appalled by AnnCoulter’s lies so are many conservatives . Even her sources say she is lieing. From the Times of London which you can get to through Andrew Sullivan’s web site:
"One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. "I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument." Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap.""

Lawrence, I'm not going to let you get away with it, so I'd advise you to stop digging, throw away the shovel, and climb out of your hole. First, it's always a good idea to read a person's book before calling them a liar, or attributing nefarious doings to them. Because it is so embarrassing to your position, you are now trying to impeach Shattan's "Architects of Victory" by this preposterous (paranoid?) rant:

"5) Then there is Coulter’s source "Architects of Victory," and the little question of why it was not footnoted. It was published by the Heritage Foundation and was not among the 1400 books I found in the library. Does it actually say Truman 'apologized' to Stalin? Or was that not 'among the other things' found in that work. It definitely does not come from Clifford. Of course this raises the question of why she didn’t footnote it. Because she makes it sound like a liberal source, rather than what it is a Heritage Foundation Publication. This is a small and clever bit of disingenuousness."

Gee, you're really going to feel like a total idiot, when you read CHAPTER 5 of "Treason" (obviously you haven't read it yet), and come to page 84. Because there you'll find footnote 38, and going back to page 306, you'll see that footnote is to:

" Joseph Shattan, Architects of Victory: Six Heroes of the Cold War, Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 1999"

So, why did she footnote to it in Chapter 5, if she somehow wanted to hide it from you?

"I did not duck your challenge- I pointed out exactly where they differed;
COULTER CLAIMS TRUMAN APOLOGIZED TO STALIN -CLIFFORD DOES NOT MENTION IT."

Hmm. You were saying, "Selective reading (is that a learning disability?)"? I asked something specific in this:

--------quote---------
[Clifford]
"The President even sent Stalin a message emphasizing that he still held out hope for better relations. He issued an invitation to him to make a similar speech in Missouri, 'for exactly the same kind of reception', and said he would introduce Stalin personally as he had Churchill."

With Coulter's:

" Truman apologized to Stalin and invited him to the United States for a rebutal speech."

Just where is there any contradiction between the two statements, Lawrence?
---------endquote--------

Your statement that Clifford didn't mention an apology is not evidence of a CONTRADICTION of her. This is elementary logic. (BTW, Coulter undoubtedly used that word because the man who delivered the message to Stalin, Walter Bedell Smith said: "It was obvious...that one of the Presidents major preoccupations was to set things right with the Soviet Union...")

There is no CONTRADICTION in the two statements. None at all. But you loudly and repeatedly called Coulter a liar for hers. Yet, she's clearly right about the invitation (and you originally denied that).

" 1) Coulter says Truman was outraged, or disagreed with Churchill’s speech. Not true."

That's right, your statement is not true. Coulter doesn't say that. You're making it up.

-------confused quote from Lawrence----
"TRYING TO DISTANCE THE ADMINISTRATION SLIGHTLY…" Of course Clifford is being precise, while Coulter is being deceitful. In response to the unexpected hostility of virtually all public opinion at the time Truman "distanced" but did not "rebuff."
Then there is Churchill’s response, directly above, this paragraph:
"Churchill understanding perfectly the President’s situation and deeply grateful for the gesture that the President had made in introducing him, did not contradict him." This raises the nice little point that the man Coulter says was being rebuffed did not perceive he was being rebuffed.
----end of confused quote------

Lawrence, Coulter did not claim that Truman's lie about having previewed Churchill's speech was the rebuff (syn: snub). She clearly said (and I quoted it for you earlier) the rebuff was having Acheson withdraw from attendance at the reception for Churchill in New York. In the above you've got Churchill keeping quiet about a lie Truman told, not about the non-attending diplomat. But, I'll bet Churchill understood the politics of the actual snub too.

" As far as your ridiculous assertion that somehow, either through an apology he did not make, or something else, emboldened Stalin top take steps anyplace there is ample other evidence. Stalin was already in Iran. Turkey was likewise an issue before the speech. On the day of the speech (March not April) the note was delivered to Stalin that clearly stated there would be no compromise on either Iran or Turkey. The whole process of confrontation was in motion at the time of the Speech."

It's great you're finally getting the hang of the calendar, but do you also realize that August is after March and April? I ask, because it was not until August, 1946 that Stalin made his move on Turkey; essentially demanding that the USSR be allowed to have naval bases in the Dardanelles.

Got the chronology? Stalin backs off Iran in the immediate aftermath of the Iron Curtain Speech, but later gets an apology/invitation from Truman. Later still he goes back on his promise to Bedell Smith not to move on Turkey.

" The political position that Coulter is trying to ascribe to Truman belonged to Henry Wallace, Secretary of Commerce at the time. Truman fired him immediately after he made this speech."

How would you know what Coulter is "trying to ascribe to Truman", you haven't read "Treason". Btw, Truman didn't want to fire Wallace, but he would have lost several members of his foreign policy team had he not done so.

This seems to be an argument of the "If you don't have the judge or the jury, pound the table" variety.

It tends to work better if you divert the conversation into someplace where you have solid footing.

Patrick,
Words have meanings, here are deffinitions from the Word dictionary
Apology 1. A written or spoken statement expressing remorse for something.
Rebuff 1. To reject or snub an offer, advance, or approach made by someone.

Patrick, you would have made a great Stalinist. After all they too branded people as traitors by being "objectively fascist." That is traitors to the revolution independent of any words or deeds these individuals might have done.

As the definition clearly states an apology is a written or spoken statement and an expression of remorse. That did not happen. Coulter is writing in, that is falsifying, this incident.. If an apology was delivered then that would have been a specific message delivered by Smith and the content of that message would have been recorded in Foreign Relations of the United States. An apology is not recorded. Couter and you are saying that an apology was made "objectively" by the invitation. Not at all, words do have meaning. And diplomatic apologies are just that formal statements. Stalin would have understood such an apology as disagreemtn with Churchill. He clearly did not.

Instead, in the meeting with Smith in April, yes that is April, the meassage delivered and recorded was "You are past the March 2 deadline (for leaving Iran), the President believes you to be a man of your word, withdraw the troops you have in Iran." There was not the slightest hint of appeasement there. And this was the meeting where he was invited. THAT IS THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN COULTER AND THE TRUTH. There was no apology,

A rebuff means to reject; Truman never rejected, nor even snubbed, Churchill’s speech. Coulter wrote that in. Truman distanced himself from the speech, but did not reject it. You and Coulter try to describe things that patently did not happen..

Here is an example of Radosh rebuffing Coulter:
"I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments.”

It seems plain to me that one her major sources is rebuffing, that is rejecting Coulter.

I actually picked up the book and read it over the past two days, hence my comments about Wallace, and my areement with Radosh that this is “crap.”Hence Radosh’s rebuff of Coulter, he was reading it too. Or isn’t direct evidence from the sources she used enough Patrick? You are silent about this.

There was nothing confused about my noting that Churchill went along with this. “He understood the situation.,” meaning he was not being rebuffed. He could have at any point either publicly, or through a leak, said precisely that, since he was in the country for a number of weeks. He could have informally said “I am being rebuffed” to one of his many admirers in the press following his speech in New York. The subsequent history of relations between the two men is warm, friendly, characterized by close agreement on anglo-american foeirn policy viz a viz the Soviet Union.

Patrick when you say:
"Stalin backs off Iran in the immediate aftermath of the Iron Curtain Speech, but later gets an apology/invitation from Truman. Later still he goes back on his promise to Bedell Smith not to move on Turkey."

He did not leave Iran in March when the note and the speech were delivered, he had not left in April, because that was the substance of the message Smith delivered in April, “leave Iran.” He did not go back on his promise after April, he had not kept it by then, nor did he simply reverse policy following April. he backed off following pressure by Truman. Got the chronology Patrick?

Having told Stalin to leave Iran (in March) , having told his Secretary of State (that is Byrnes by the way) there would be no compromises (in March by the way), and having conveyed that position in March, again in April, and repeatedly in other months, you claim the message was one of appeasement. Had Smith, in April, delivered an apology, that is “a written or spoken statement, expressing remorse,” then maybe, just maybe, ,you might have a point. No such meassage was delivered.

As far as this assertion
“Btw, Truman didn't want to fire Wallace, but he would have lost several members of his foreign policy team had he not done so.”
Clifford is clear on this as well. He took actions in August expecting that they would lead Wallace to resign. Of course the response of others in the administration were the same, THEY WERE FOLLOWING HIS ORDERS WHICH WERE NO MORE COMPROMISES WITH STALIN. Wallace was undercutting Truman, not some independent, fly by night, free lancing, Secretary of State. Truman was the head of state of a country, directing a policy for that country He was most definitely not the head of some loose coalition of cabinet memebers.

BTW Patrick, like any good Stalinist, you share with them the same bullying, and arrogant rhetoric, do you really think that I would not disagree, or walk away, because of the sort comments contained in your responses. These might perform some deep psychological function for your angry pshyche, but you keep painting yourself further into a corner. I'm leaving for the beach, I'll be back Monday. So if you do not see a response to your further rants, do not assume that I agree.

Patrick,
Words have meanings, here are deffinitions from the Word dictionary
Apology 1. A written or spoken statement expressing remorse for something.
Rebuff 1. To reject or snub an offer, advance, or approach made by someone.

Patrick, you would have made a great Stalinist. After all they too branded people as traitors by being "objectively fascist." That is traitors to the revolution independent of any words or deeds these individuals might have done.

As the definition clearly states an apology is a written or spoken statement and an expression of remorse. That did not happen. Coulter is writing in, that is falsifying, this incident.. If an apology was delivered then that would have been a specific message delivered by Smith and the content of that message would have been recorded in Foreign Relations of the United States. An apology is not recorded. Couter and you are saying that an apology was made "objectively" by the invitation. Not at all, words do have meaning. And diplomatic apologies are just that formal statements. Stalin would have understood such an apology as disagreemtn with Churchill. He clearly did not.

Instead, in the meeting with Smith in April, yes that is April, the meassage delivered and recorded was "You are past the March 2 deadline (for leaving Iran), the President believes you to be a man of your word, withdraw the troops you have in Iran." There was not the slightest hint of appeasement there. And this was the meeting where he was invited. THAT IS THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN COULTER AND THE TRUTH. There was no apology,

A rebuff means to reject; Truman never rejected, nor even snubbed, Churchill’s speech. Coulter wrote that in. Truman distanced himself from the speech, but did not reject it. You and Coulter try to describe things that patently did not happen..

Here is an example of Radosh rebuffing Coulter:
"I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments.”

It seems plain to me that one her major sources is rebuffing, that is rejecting Coulter.

I actually picked up the book and read it over the past two days, hence my comments about Wallace, and my areement with Radosh that this is “crap.”Hence Radosh’s rebuff of Coulter, he was reading it too. Or isn’t direct evidence from the sources she used enough Patrick? You are silent about this.

There was nothing confused about my noting that Churchill went along with this. “He understood the situation.,” meaning he was not being rebuffed. He could have at any point either publicly, or through a leak, said precisely that, since he was in the country for a number of weeks. He could have informally said “I am being rebuffed” to one of his many admirers in the press following his speech in New York. The subsequent history of relations between the two men is warm, friendly, characterized by close agreement on anglo-american foeirn policy viz a viz the Soviet Union.

Patrick when you say:
"Stalin backs off Iran in the immediate aftermath of the Iron Curtain Speech, but later gets an apology/invitation from Truman. Later still he goes back on his promise to Bedell Smith not to move on Turkey."

He did not leave Iran in March when the note and the speech were delivered, he had not left in April, because that was the substance of the message Smith delivered in April, “leave Iran.” He did not go back on his promise after April, he had not kept it by then, nor did he simply reverse policy following April. he backed off following pressure by Truman. Got the chronology Patrick?

Having told Stalin to leave Iran (in March) , having told his Secretary of State (that is Byrnes by the way) there would be no compromises (in March by the way), and having conveyed that position in March, again in April, and repeatedly in other months, you claim the message was one of appeasement. Had Smith, in April, delivered an apology, that is “a written or spoken statement, expressing remorse,” then maybe, just maybe, ,you might have a point. No such meassage was delivered.

As far as this assertion
“Btw, Truman didn't want to fire Wallace, but he would have lost several members of his foreign policy team had he not done so.”
Clifford is clear on this as well. He took actions in August expecting that they would lead Wallace to resign. Of course the response of others in the administration were the same, THEY WERE FOLLOWING HIS ORDERS WHICH WERE NO MORE COMPROMISES WITH STALIN. Wallace was undercutting Truman, not some independent, fly by night, free lancing, Secretary of State. Truman was the head of state of a country, directing a policy for that country He was most definitely not the head of some loose coalition of cabinet memebers.

BTW Patrick, like any good Stalinist, you share with them the same bullying, and arrogant rhetoric, do you really think that I would not disagree, or walk away, because of the sort comments contained in your responses. These might perform some deep psychological function for your angry pshyche, but you keep painting yourself further into a corner. I'm leaving for the beach, I'll be back Monday. So if you do not see a response to your further rants, do not assume that I agree.

Yes, julia, that is exactly what Lawrence has been reduced to. He pounds the table with such as:

" Then on page 145. According to Chase:
" 'On April 4, Walter Beddel Smith…Had a late night meeting with Stalin. During the session he presented the session he presented an invitation from Truman to Stalin inviting the Soviet leader to the United States. Despite his tough talk Truman was still hoping for better relations.' Here *no mention at all is made of an apology, an invitation, nor the Missouri*. And this comes from the original source (Footnote cites original State Department Document)." [my *]

Lawrence has been loudly claiming that every biographer of Truman disagrees with Coulter about this. Let's see what David McCullough had to say about this in his comprehensive, "Truman" (p. 490):

" Truman was stunned by the criticism. Returning to Washingon, he quickly backed off from responsibility, telling reporters he never knew what Churchill was going to say...

"To *placate* Stalin, he wrote a letter offering to send the *Missouri* to bring him to the United States and promising to accompany him to the University of Missouri so that he too might speak his mind, as Churhill had." [my * in the preceding]

So, we have a refutation of each point Lawrence was claiming. McCullough mentions an apology (i.e. "To placate"), the battleship Missouri, and an invitation to speak in rebuttal of Churchill.

Then it helps to screw around with the chronology while pounding the table, as Lawrence did here:

"Of course on Page 146 we also have what Truman actually told Churchill about the speech:
"Truman… told Churchill it would do ‘nothing but good’ and surely ‘make a stir.’"
Of course had Coulter cited this she could hardly make the case that Truman wanted to "rebuff" Churchill."

The problem being that Truman told that to Churchill BEFORE the speech. Afterwards, when the criticism came forth and "stunned" him, he lied to reporters about having previewed it, and tersely said, "no comment", when asked if he agreed with Churchill. That's a rebuff in anyone's language, but it's not the rebuff Coulter specifically claimed. It was telling Acheson to cancel his role as host to Churchill at a reception in NY that Coulter cited. It seems to me to have been a pretty "ostentatious" rebuff too.

I wonder if Lawrence would have time while at the beach to check his dictionary and see if a "rebuff" requires acknowledgement of it by the rebuffee, to be official?

At any rate, Lawrence, you're projecting your own arrogance and angry psyche onto me. After all, I'm not the guy who repeatedly called someone a liar without even reading their book. BTW, Radosh seems to be a little angry too. Why, just because some little 98lb blonde draws different conclusions from the facts he dug up? Not too scholarly, I would have thought (before I encountered so many of them on the internet, I have to admit).

Words do indeed have meanings, and an apology is NOT a " statement expressing remorse for something". Remorse (bitter regret or moral anguish) could be a reason for offering an apology, but it is not necessary, and not even usual. If you bump into someone in the hallway, you apologize, but you don't express "remorse". Apologies also don't have to be sincere, and in politics usually aren't, they're tactical.

In this case, we have Bedell Smith--the man who delivered it--saying the purpose was, "to set things right". That's descriptive of an apology. i.e. a statement of regret for an offense.

We have David McCullough, saying it was, "To placate Stalin", which is even worse as it is an apology accompanied by appeasement. The appeasement in this case being an all expenses paid trip via the U.S.S. Missouri to a speaking engagement for the purpose of rebutting Churchill.

Now, you do a better job defining:

" Rebuff 1. To reject or snub an offer, advance, or approach made by someone."

And that is exactly what Truman did to Churchill's "approach". In three ascending stages. First, he rejected the speech by *ostentatiously* refusing to endorse it (indeed, by lying about having previewed it). Second, by *ostentatiously* pulling Acheson from the reception in New York when Acheson had been scheduled to introduce Churchill. And finally, by *ostentatiously* (offering to have the U.S. battleship on which we accepted Japan's surrender deliver him) inviting him to speak in the U.S.

What do you think the symbolism would have been taken to be if Stalin HAD ACCEPTED, and Truman introduced him at the U of Missouri, as his good friend, "Uncle Joe"? Not that Churchill needed to acknowledge the snub for it to be one, but don't you think he might have seen it for that? BTW, you aren't so silly as to think the target of the message was Churchill, are you?

---------quote from Lawrence---------
Patrick when you say:
"Stalin backs off Iran in the immediate aftermath of the Iron Curtain Speech, but later gets an apology/invitation from Truman. Later still he goes back on his promise to Bedell Smith not to move on Turkey."

He did not leave Iran in March when the note and the speech were delivered, he had not left in April, because that was the substance of the message Smith delivered in April, “leave Iran.” He did not go back on his promise after April, he had not kept it by then, nor did he simply reverse policy following April. he backed off following pressure by Truman. Got the chronology Patrick ?
----endquote------

Oh, I know the chronology, and I know the difference between Iran and Turkey too. How about you? You claim to be using Chace's book on Acheson as a source, then you should know that when the deadline for withdrawal of troops from IRAN, of March 2, passed, George Kennan protested. A further message from Acheson asking for an explanation of Soviet troop movements was delivered on March 9th. Chace says there was no "ultimatum" delivered to Stalin. Churchill's speech was made March 6th, but it took a few days for the reaction and Truman's ostentatious rejection of its approach.

Finally, on March 26th Moscow announced it was withdrawing from Iran, and began to so withdraw the next day. So, by the time Bedell Smith met with Stalin the Iranian crisis was almost over.

Which would be why Smith pressed Stalin about TURKEY:

" 'How far is Russia going to go?', Smith asked.

" 'We're not going to go much further,' Stalin answered. The Iranian question may have been settled, but any Soviet designs on Turkey remained."

The above is from page 145 of Chace's "Acheson", so Lawrence should be familiar with it. The rest of the conversation is recounted in Shattan's "Architects of Victory" (p.35)

" 'You say "not much further" ', [Smith] observed, 'but does that "much" have any reference to Turkey?'

" 'I have answered President Truman and have stated publicly that the Soviet Union has no intention of attacking Turkey, nor does this intention exist' "

But in August Stalin suddenly demanded, "joint Soviet--Turkish defense of the Dardanelles", and the very real threat of WWIII loomed. So, according to two sources, Chace and Shattan, I am correct. Stalin began to withdraw from Iran in March, and went back on his promises about Turkey in August.

Patrick,
If you hav e reviewed what was said on the internet you would know by now that you defending Coulter leads you into the precise position you find yourself in now. Specifically you are having an argument, not with me, but the dictionary.

I was not making up a deffinition for either apology, nor rebuff, I was CITING the deffinition found in the Word dictionary. You could of course cite an alternative deffinition but you can't find one. Hence you are left dangling at the end of Coulter's rope. She makes this rope out of a series of lies and deciet. This is why one of her own frequently cited sources, Radosh, "rebuffs" her.

As far as the chronology of events goes. Smith met with Stalin on April 4. The Missouri arrived in the Dardenelles on April 5. (Chace p. 153)
On the other hand you are chasing after the scenario that Stalin changed his behavior after the meeting on April 4. How he could do this based on the evidence is known only to you. (As is apparently the common meanings of words). Late night he meets with Smith, next morning he recieves news that the Missouri and naval task force are in the Dardenelles. You are doing this because you Coulter said there was an apology. You do not take Coulter at her word, you turn apology, into "implied" apology, and then construct a scenario that says Stalin interpreted an invitation as an apology. Had Coulter used implied, or implicit, she would have tried to do the same, and come to grief in the same way you have.

I told you to stop digging, Lawrence.

" On the other hand you are chasing after the scenario that Stalin changed his behavior after the meeting on April 4. How he could do this based on the evidence is known only to you. (As is apparently the common meanings of words). Late night he meets with Smith, next morning he recieves news that the Missouri and naval task force are in the Dardenelles."

No he didn't. As Chace says, the task force wasn't even ordered to the Dardanelles until August. Read it and weep, (Chace, p.153):

"On August 7, 1946, Russia ...now demanded a joint Turkish-Soviet defense of the [Dardanelles], which would necessarily require Soviet bases.....

"Secretary of the Navy Forrestal ordered a naval task force, which included a new aircraft carrier, the Franklin D. Roosevelt, and two destroyers, to rendezvous off Lisbon with two cruisers and three more American destroyers ...to join the USS Missouri, which had already arrived in the Dardanelles on April 5.

"The pretext on which it was sent there was to bring back the body of Megmet Munir Ertegun, the Turkish ambassador to the United States, who had died in Washington during World War II. There was an old tradition that chiefs of mission who died in service were returned by warship."

Besides, you were claiming Smith was sent, in April, to demand Stalin leave IRAN, not Turkey.

As for this weak sister stuff:

"I was not making up a deffinition for either apology, nor rebuff, I was CITING the deffinition found in the Word dictionary. You could of course cite an alternative deffinition but you can't find one."

I told you that your definition of "rebuff" fits perfectly with what Truman did; he rejected Churchill's approach. As for my finding a definition of "apology" that does not mention "remorse", ask and you shall receive. (From Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary):

"apology...A statement of acknowledgment asking pardon or expressing regret for a fault or offense." Just as I said.

You've been wrong about EVERYTHING. Totally, completely, absolutely, WRONG. And, by contrast, Coulter has been correct.