I think Teller’s an interesting, weird, easy-to-underestimate guy. I’ve had Istvan Hargittai’s book Judging Edward Teller on my desk for six months now — I keep wanting to read it, but keep getting too busy with other things.

He couched everything he said in qualifications, in the possibility that he understood it wrong, that he heard things wrong. He acknowledged that most of what he had was hearsay. He spent a huge amount of the testimony praising Oppenheimer as an administrator at Los Alamos, as the author of the Acheson-Lilienthal plan, as

It didn’t come right at the end — there was plenty of time to rebut.

And frankly, from Teller’s point of view, everything was accurate. (Teller’s point of view was, as is well known, factually off the mark at times, and he certainly took fliers on interpreting “what if” situations.)

I just don’t see the “damning” quality to it. He did say that he didn’t think Oppenheimer should have a clearance, which is a nasty thing to do. But it’s not the nastiest thing in the record, and there’s no evidence that it was particularly persuasive, or that it pushed anybody from one point of view to another.

Mr. GRAY. I think you have explained why you feel that way. I would then like to ask you this question: Do you feel that it would endanger the common defense and security to grant clearance to Dr. Oppenheimer?

The WITNESS. I believe, and that is merely a question of belief and there is no expertness, no real information behind it, that Dr. Oppenheimer’s character is such that he would not knowingly and willingly do anything that is designed to endanger the safety of this country. To the extent, therefore, that your question is directed toward intent, I would say I do not see any reason to deny clearance.

If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance. I must say that I am myself a little bit confused on this issue, particularly as it refers to a person of Oppenheimer’s prestige and influence.

That’s about as serious as it gets.

The thing is, there was a “damning” witness in the Oppenheimer hearing. One who undoubtedly was responsible for swaying people’s opinions. One whose testimony ran a whopping 230 pages, and showed that Oppenheimer was indeed inconsistent, frequently displayed bad judgment, and outright lied when questioned by security officers. This witness’s name was, of course, J. Robert Oppenheimer.

I think we should give credit where it is deserved, separate from the question of whether Teller was a nice guy or not, or advocated big bombs or not.

Judging from the transcripts, Teller came across (to those at the hearing) as a man who had thought deeply and thoroughly about the ‘problem’. A man who, after painful attempts to discard his own intuition, to check his own bias, and to give Oppenheimer the benefit of the doubt, still felt compelled to testify against the ‘accused’. My question is: did Teller’s testimony POTENTIALLY carry more credibility at the hearings? If so, maybe that’s why he got most of the beating.