History is awfully convenient for your version of events. It take places solely in one on one conversations, and everyone who could confirm or disprove what you say took place in those conversations is now dead. Those dead include the main figures who are the object of your attacks, individuals who are not around to defend their reputations from your assaults. Of course, you could have made these attacks on them when they were alive and able to defend themselves, but you waited until they had passed.
As to the specific event I mentioned...
My memory is rather clear on Michael Harrington retiring with us to the bar after Selma Lenihan's memorial service; he did not stay long, as I recall, but he was there. It is altogether plausible to me that Paul DuBrul [whose name you do not remember] was also there, and he may even have agreed with you on a point or two. Given that none of the rest of us did agree with you, you would probably have a good recall of anyone who did.
Michael -- and those of us who defended his decision not to write a blurb on behalf of your book -- always understood that because he was DSA's [and before that, DSOC's] public face, his endorsement was seen as a DSA endorsement. He could not, therefore, "pesonally" endorse a candidate in an election without it being seen as a DSA endorsement, nor could he "personally" intervene in a major controversy on the left without it being seen as a DSA intervention. Michael understood that, and understood that it would be very easy for someone in his position to abuse and override democratic processes within DSA by simply issuing personal positions which became de facto organizational positions. Since he had a respect for organizational democracy that you do not seem to understood, and because he understood that democratic organizations should not be pronouncing truth on scholarly matters in a way that you also do not seem to understand, he chose not to endorse your book.
What you neglect to point out is that both Harrington and Howe were on the published record, again and again, on the question of the Communist Party USA [hell, Irving wrote an entire book on the subject], in ways that were quite critical, to say the least. The suggestion that they felt politically constrained from speaking "the truth" about American communism is an absurd calumny, completely belied by the actual historical record.
It seems to me that, at a minimum, if you are going to recount events which involve people who are no longer alive to provide their side of the exchange, you might provide their actual arguments for what they did, and not just your self-serving account.
There is also, I must say, an enormous ego-centric view of the world at operation here, such that the world [at least in the form of Harrington and Howe] owes you publicity blurbs for your book. For the rest of the world, such blurbs are favors that people do when they feel they want to do so, either out of friendship or out of sponsorship. For you, it is a birthright.
As for what your book on the Rosenbergs said about the case, let us just leave it that your capacity for historical precision and your grasp for historical nuance does not seem to have grown over the years.
Leo Casey