Replies

When American intelligence broke the Soviet wartime code,we learned that the Soviets had infiltrated the American government. The American intelligence community’s penchant for secrecy and its refusal to admit that it had been infiltrated was so great that it failed to disclose this to President Harry S. Truman.

John Loftus is incorrect. So was Moynihan but in a different way. Truman did know about Venona. Moyihan's statement is understandable as the common assumption has been Truman did not know. Pat attributed the secrecy to the Army's desire to not let the Soviets know we broke their codes. Considering that Truman kept his knowledge of Venona secret and did little about the infiltration (he told the press Hiss was not a Soviet agent when he knew Hiss was ), Moyihan acted in good faith saying what he said. He was one of the last decent Democrats.

Loftus is another matter. Do a google search on his name. He is a liberal activist. Notice how he claims the "evil" intelligence community was loath to admit it had been compromised. That is just plan silly as anyone who knows the story of James Jesus Angleton is aware. What Loftus does not want to admit is it was not so much the intelligence agencies which were compromised but his beloved Democratic party, the State Department (a hive of liberals), the FDR and the Truman administration. The New Deal coalition swarmed with traitors.

Far as Pollard is concerned...I have no idea what the proper course of action is. Somebody had it in for him. I do not believe that was without good reason. But he has served a long sentence. On the other hand, releasing someone because a foreign government lobbys strongly for it is extremly bad policy and a precedent which should never be set. Bush is good at these types of problems. Perhaps he should pardon Pollard. Be best if a Republican did it. To grant a pardon, Bush would have to lay out very clearly the following: Pollard cooperated fully. He has been punished enough. Lobbying for his release had nothing to do with the decision to grant a pardon. If Bush grants a pardon without doing all that, it will appear to be another Marc Rich case and the base of the GOP, the military and the intelligence community will be furious.

Did the google search. Didn't find the liberal activist. Wouldn't matter if he was/is, if he's right.

John Loftus can't keep his lies straight. Years ago I heard a speech of his that totally contradicts the data he has on his website. Then he claimed he was specifically appointed by the Carter administration to search through records in DC to ferret out Nazis employed by our military. Now he says he resigned his post to expose this.

Look at his website. It is a hoot. His bio there begins by saying his possibly knows more military secrets than anyone alive! From his former lowly position in the Army, he says he had a higher security clearance than almost everyone imaginable.

His web page carries a 'document' written by Sam Parry, son of Robert Parry who was an ardent Viet commie supporter. Loftus states he is anti-Bush and anti-Cheney.

From his place in Florida, Loftus now claims to be an expert on Enron,al Qaida, bin Ladin etc. He is a nut.

Loftus has been a liberal activist for decades if not his adult life.

Loftus has made some big errors in some of his claims.

The most recent appears to be his bold claims that Saddam, his sons and most of Saddam's power clique were killed on the first night we dropped the bunker buster and followed up with the cruise missiles. That may have been as off base as his claims re Pollard are.

He has no idea what Pollard exposed this nation to. Loftus had no need to know and would have been exposed to what Pollard knew and gave to the Israelis.

It is also a specious argument that Pollard only spied for allies. Many Americans with high clearances were told to never divulge what they knew to spouses, parents or siblings for as long as we live. That is inspite of those close relatives being vetted as well as those cleared.

I am very strong supporter of Israel and its desire to survive as a nation. I don't support Israel nor its spy, Pollard in this case.

Pollard was a traitor and was found guilty of treason and the unauthorized release of critical secrets. He should have gotten the death penalty.

I make no distinction between spying for money and spying for ideology. This was not wartime, and there was no life and death 'behind the lines' mission to save the troops. IMO, all other arguments are specious.

I don't think GWB will pardon Pollard. He won't be swayed by the 'make a good will gesture to Israel' argument, nor will he be make a Clinton-type move that will draw attention from all the good things he's done. So, one's an ideological decision, the other political. Works for me!

If Israel stopped the constant harping on the issue, Pollard might someday have a glimmer of a hope of getting out. As things stand now, no way. We will not bend just because some other nation wants to prove that spying for them doesn't have extreme consequences. Why should we make it easier for Israel to recruit traitorous dogs?

Loftus is another matter. Do a google search on his name. He is a liberal activist. Notice how he claims the "evil" intelligence community was loath to admit it had been compromised. That is just plan silly as anyone who knows the story of James Jesus Angleton is aware. What Loftus does not want to admit is it was not so much the intelligence agencies which were compromised but his beloved Democratic party, the State Department (a hive of liberals), the FDR and the Truman administration. The New Deal coalition swarmed with traitors.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I had no idea that John Loftus was a liberal activist or a Democrat. I received the link in a right wing Torah Nationalist e-mail and thought the contents might be of interest to FReepers.

Two points: first, while the liberalism of the source certainly must be taken into account, I wish to point out that Israel-haters have never hesitated to invoke the most radical leftists (Gore Vidal, Normal Mailer, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Vanessa Redgrave, Ralph Nader, Lyndon LaRouche, even Joseph Stalin) whenever the statements of these people agreed with their own positions. Their response has always been that at least these leftists are "honest" or represent cases where leftism has slipped out of the "control" of its "creators." I say this not to lump you in with such company (since I know nothing about you), but merely to point out that even a broken clock is right twice a day and the liberalism of the source, while it may be an influence on his conclusion, does not necessarily disqualify his conclusions.

Secondly, the infiltration of the State Department during the Roosevelt-Truman administrations is so well known and well documented as to be beyond debate. However, I wish to point out that that same notoriously leftist State Department is the same government department that has been fanatically anti-Israel and pro-Arab for some sixty years. Coincidence?