The Rebuttal: Defending 'American Betrayal' From the Book-Burners by Diana West
Authors: Diana West
place.”
The passage of time doesn’t negate
the recollections of a source, and Kirby, as a former key intelligence official
charged with briefing the few members of the US government who were permitted
Venona information, appears to have to be a solid source. Ten years ago, when
the Schecters first published these findings about Truman, columnist Robert
Novak reinterviewed Kirby and found him and his story completely credible.
(More on that below.)
RADOSH
GETS CONFUSED
Radosh continues:
“Even
worse, Kirby’s account is third-hand. He claimed that General Clarke told him
this at some unspecified time, and acknowledges that he himself was not present
at any meeting between Truman and Bradley. Nor is there any documentation to
show that such a meeting ever took place.”
Uh-oh. Ronald Radosh has just mixed
up two meetings separated by five years into one mess.
Kirby’s account of his 1950
conversation with Bradley is not third-hand. It is first-hand. He had the
conversations with Bradley himself. As far as “no documentation” goes, the
Schecters cite Kirby’s handwritten notes for this same meeting.
Radosh is wrong again.
The Radosh mix-ups don’t stop. I
would certainly let this next one ride but it includes another slap at my credibility.
MEETING
3
Radosh writes:
“Kirby
told the Schecters that Clarke had long conversations with Bradley and
Secretary of Defense James Forrestal about Venona. But contrary to West’s
claim, Kirby acknowledged to the Schecters that he had no notes of this meeting. There is nothing in either Bradley’s or Forrestal’s own papers that would
corroborate Kirby’s story. (Emphasis in the original.)
Not in my book.
Let’s be real #1: I actually didn’t
write about such a Forrestal meeting as Radosh describes, so there is no
“claim” I made regarding it.
Let’s be real #2: Is Radosh saying
he has searched Bradley’s and Forrestal’s “own papers” to see if there is
anything in them to corroborate Kirby’s story? Or is he just … saying?
Let’s be real #3: Radosh writes
about Kirby telling the Schecters that “Clarke had long conversations with
Bradley and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal about Venona.” But he’s wrong.
It was Kirby who had the long
conversations with Bradley and Forrestal! Clarke isn’t even part of this
anecdote – at least not in the Schecters’ book.
Maybe Plokhy? Maybe Gaddis? Maybe
Rees?
What the Schecters actually write is
this: “However, Kirby, who worked for General Clarke, and had long, thoughtful
conversations with General Bradley and Secretary Forrestal on VENONA, is
certain the president was informed and was part of the dialogue.”
I will conclude this belabored
section by noting that this line of Radosh attack is just a bullying and very
confused version of an already heated exchange over the same material from the
Schecters’ book − what Truman knew about Venona and when he knew it
− that took place ten years ago. Back in 2003, the combatants were Haynes
and Klehr on the Radosh side, with the late Robert Novak taking the Schecters’
and, by extension, my side today.
In the 2003 exchange − which,
for the record, is footnoted in my book on p. 372 in another example of my not disregarding “the findings of the sources she does rely on
when they contradict her yellow journalism conspiracy
theories,” as I have been so falsely accused of doing − Novak wrote:
“The
heart of the dispute is the account by a living witness to these long ago
events. Former National Security Agency officer Oliver Kirby told the Schecters
and confirmed to me how the "Venona material was presented to Truman by
General Omar Bradley. …
“While
Klehr and Haynes call Kirby's account `highly unlikely,’ none of his
recollections is contradicted as they claim. Kirby's assertions that Truman
knew are based on notes he made at the time he worked on Venona, contradicting
the Klehr and Haynes dismissal of Kirby's recollections
The passage of time doesn’t negate
the recollections of a source, and Kirby, as a former key intelligence official
charged with briefing the few members of the US government who were permitted
Venona information, appears to have to be a solid source. Ten years ago, when
the Schecters first published these findings about Truman, columnist Robert
Novak reinterviewed Kirby and found him and his story completely credible.
(More on that below.)
RADOSH
GETS CONFUSED
Radosh continues:
“Even
worse, Kirby’s account is third-hand. He claimed that General Clarke told him
this at some unspecified time, and acknowledges that he himself was not present
at any meeting between Truman and Bradley. Nor is there any documentation to
show that such a meeting ever took place.”
Uh-oh. Ronald Radosh has just mixed
up two meetings separated by five years into one mess.
Kirby’s account of his 1950
conversation with Bradley is not third-hand. It is first-hand. He had the
conversations with Bradley himself. As far as “no documentation” goes, the
Schecters cite Kirby’s handwritten notes for this same meeting.
Radosh is wrong again.
The Radosh mix-ups don’t stop. I
would certainly let this next one ride but it includes another slap at my credibility.
MEETING
3
Radosh writes:
“Kirby
told the Schecters that Clarke had long conversations with Bradley and
Secretary of Defense James Forrestal about Venona. But contrary to West’s
claim, Kirby acknowledged to the Schecters that he had no notes of this meeting. There is nothing in either Bradley’s or Forrestal’s own papers that would
corroborate Kirby’s story. (Emphasis in the original.)
Not in my book.
Let’s be real #1: I actually didn’t
write about such a Forrestal meeting as Radosh describes, so there is no
“claim” I made regarding it.
Let’s be real #2: Is Radosh saying
he has searched Bradley’s and Forrestal’s “own papers” to see if there is
anything in them to corroborate Kirby’s story? Or is he just … saying?
Let’s be real #3: Radosh writes
about Kirby telling the Schecters that “Clarke had long conversations with
Bradley and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal about Venona.” But he’s wrong.
It was Kirby who had the long
conversations with Bradley and Forrestal! Clarke isn’t even part of this
anecdote – at least not in the Schecters’ book.
Maybe Plokhy? Maybe Gaddis? Maybe
Rees?
What the Schecters actually write is
this: “However, Kirby, who worked for General Clarke, and had long, thoughtful
conversations with General Bradley and Secretary Forrestal on VENONA, is
certain the president was informed and was part of the dialogue.”
I will conclude this belabored
section by noting that this line of Radosh attack is just a bullying and very
confused version of an already heated exchange over the same material from the
Schecters’ book − what Truman knew about Venona and when he knew it
− that took place ten years ago. Back in 2003, the combatants were Haynes
and Klehr on the Radosh side, with the late Robert Novak taking the Schecters’
and, by extension, my side today.
In the 2003 exchange − which,
for the record, is footnoted in my book on p. 372 in another example of my not disregarding “the findings of the sources she does rely on
when they contradict her yellow journalism conspiracy
theories,” as I have been so falsely accused of doing − Novak wrote:
“The
heart of the dispute is the account by a living witness to these long ago
events. Former National Security Agency officer Oliver Kirby told the Schecters
and confirmed to me how the "Venona material was presented to Truman by
General Omar Bradley. …
“While
Klehr and Haynes call Kirby's account `highly unlikely,’ none of his
recollections is contradicted as they claim. Kirby's assertions that Truman
knew are based on notes he made at the time he worked on Venona, contradicting
the Klehr and Haynes dismissal of Kirby's recollections