Charleymane,
Let's review the very brief mention of I.F. Stone in each of the three articles you cite. I'm including every sentence that mentions Stone in all three.
New Republic: "Certainly there are ambiguities in the status of such persons as I.F. Stone and J. Robert Oppenheimer, for example."
Human Events: Romerstein presents highly persuasive evidence that J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos project that produced the atomic bomb, was also a Soviet spy; that the Venona messages plus information from former KGB general Oleg Kalugin show that journalist I. F. Stone, an icon of the American left, was on the take from Moscow (though he refused further payments after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968), and that Venona nails atomic spy Julius Rosenberg as, in Romerstein’s words, "a direct link between Soviet intelligence and the leadership of the American Communist Party..............
"Romerstein’s book has not been reviewed by the major liberal media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. The New Republic, a liberal anti-Communist magazine that used to frequently run the writings of co-author Breindel, has derided the book (but not reviewed it), insisting that Breindel would never have subscribed to Romerstein’s conclusion that Oppenheimer was "a conscious collaborator with the Soviet secret police," that Harry Hopkins was a "Soviet agent" and that I. F. Stone "in the end agreed to work for the NKVD."
Future of Freedom Foundation: "A leading proponent of this view (of who started the Korean War) was the American journalist I.F. Stone. It now turns out that Stone was on the Soviet payroll."
*************
What may we conclude from these three articles?
First, there is only accusation and innuendo presented.
Secondly, there is no "smoking gun", as one article states, this conjecture about Stone is "ambiguous".
Third, reading the Human Events bombast, one might even begin to wonder if the author is so disingenuous that when he said that Stone refused further payments after the invasion of Czechoslovakia, what he most likely is refering to in an instance where I.F. Stone simply wouldn't allow the Soviet apparatchiks to continue with a subscription to the newsletter. The Human Events author seems the sort to engage in this sort of mendacious sophistry. He clearly has the vindictive nature to try to prosecute Stone. Why did he stop short of actually providing some facts about the nature of Stone's purported relationship with the Soviets? Almost certainly because he had nothing further to go on.
**************
I am left to conclude that both you and Bob Novak are doing nothing more than blowing smoke and obfuscating the record with nasty innuendo. Typical right wing tactics. And very low brow. You have to try a lot harder if you hope to be convincing.
-Ray |
