Sunday, September 14, 2008


Should we issue a statement about this? Sobell told the NYT he was indeed a spy! Perhaps younger readers have no idea what this is about!

In view of BR's stout affirmation of Sobell's innocence, this is another reminder of how much better it would have been had BR more often been more cautious in his pronouncements. Sobell was not involved in nuclear questions, even though he knew the Rosenbergs and David Greenglass. Moreover, it is germane that at the time Sobell did his spying the USSR and the USA were still official wartime allies.

It is a fortiori clear in view of Sobell's recent statement that Ethel Rosenberg's essential innocence is vindicated. One wonders if Ike knew of the extreme dishonesty with which the trial of the Rosenbergs was conducted with the judge illegally working behind the scenes with the prosecutors. Ike was a party to so much brutal skulduggery that nothing would surprise me at this point regarding his behavior. My grandmother used to call Eisenhower "Dopey Dwight." Little did she know that he should have been called "Depraved Dwight." The appeal to Ike's warning of "the Military Industrial Complex" is no vindication. Just start with Guatemala and end with Ike's admission that elections were not allowed to be held in Vietnam because the Americans knew Ho Chi Minh would win them. Consider how John Foster Dulles led Ike astray by insisting the USA not sign the Geneva Accords terminating the 1st Indochina War with the French pulling out completely in 1954. Ray Perkins once or twice pointed to Ike's "open skies" proposals as perhaps being a worthwhile initiative. Actually, these proposals were little more than American propaganda paving the way for U-2 spy flights (cf the sequlae in Paris of Powers' U-2 being shot down).