the divagations of one Richard Barnet,na senior fellow at the Institute for PolicynStudies.nAssociated with an institution of thisnkind and flavor, Mr. Barnet would havenbeen regarded, two decades ago, as anfellow-traveler rather than a senior. ThenInstitute for Policy Studies, as its amplenoutput testifies-, is a far-left outfit whichnsees in America an immoral power withnultra-imperialistic goals abroad and annutterly corrupted socio-economic systemnat home. Small wonder that hisncase, as it is presented in the Times,nrests on presumptions:n—the Cold War was and still isnAmerica’s heinous attack on thenSoviet Union’s best intentions toncreate a world of peace;n—the less military might stored innAmerica, the better for all the goodnin the universe and mankind onnearth;n—whatever negotiations are takingnplace between Russia and the U.S.,nit is the latter who is a crook and ancheat who always will try to grosslynabuse the Russian good will and theninherent innocence of the communistsnin power.nObviously, for anyone with thisnmindset, things look quite simple:nSALT is a blessing, America will try tonpervert it, but thanks to the Russianninborn, ideological uprightness, and theninfinite wisdom of her leadership, allnPentagon machinations will be successfullynthwarted by the Bolshevik forcesnof light —and peace will prevail over war.nThis seems to be the gist of Mr. Barnet’snmeanderings. It would be beneathnthe New York Times’ liberal sense ofnequity to ask Brian Crozier, GeneralnSinglaub, or Hugh Seton-Watson whatnthey think of Mr. Barnet and his opinions,nand open its pages to their knowledgenand views. They could have said,nfor instance:n(1) That there’s no such thing as twonvery bad, bloodthirsty, war-monger-nSSinChronicles of Culturening super-giants, but only one—thenSoviet Union—and there’s a mountainnof evidence to substantiate this,nwhich makes the SALT agreement anshady enterprise;n(2) That we once made a deal withnthe Soviets, a deal in which we shouldnhave little pride, which has let themncolonize half of Europe in return fornthe promise of an established andnmaintained order all around thenworld—and even before the ink hadndried on their signatures, they nullifiedntheir promise in Greece, Berlin,nKorea and later in Cuba, Vietnamnand Angola, while we never tried tonattack their sphere of influence anywhere,neven if cries for help fromnCzechoslovakia, Hungary or EastnGermany filled our eyes with tearsn—which makes any faith in a treatynwith them a highly suspicious undertaking;n(3) That not one of our sacred booksnasks us to destroy Russia, the Sovietnstate, or the Soviet political system,nwhile every book taught to childrennin Soviet schools asks them to devotentheir life to the destruction of America,nits institutions and its people,nthe killing of whom is presented asnamission;n(4) That insofar as the cause of thenproletariat and world revolution,nwhich the Soviet Union claims tonembody, is promoted by the Sovietnphilosophy and poetry, any confidencenin such notions as morality,nprinciple and honor in dealing withnthem is moot, makes any transactionnwith them an exercise in futility and,nultimately, a disastrous bargain fornwhich our children will have to payndearly, and we will appear as dolefulnfools in future history courses.nUnfortunately, the high-priced pagesnof the New York Times, America’s premierninterpreter of contemporaneity,nare closed to such pensees. DnnnTime’s Pharisaism (Cont.)nThe never-ending saga of Timenmagazine’s hypocrisy has been successfullynperpetuated, of late, by its storynon the CIA. In it, the 6th Avenue templenof self-righteousness and casuistrynasserts that tremendous damage hasnbeen done to the national interest andnthat America has become practicallynblind in a world full of beasts prowlingnaround our almost defenseless body.nWhat Time chooses not to say is: Whynis it so? Who did it.-* And how? Fromnthe Time “essay,” an inadvertent readei:nmight get the impression that the denmise of the CIA’s functionality wasnbrought about by lightning from heavennwhich struck its headquarters in Langley,nVirginia, melted down its ultrasensitivendevices, paralyzed the moralenof the spooks and even killed some ofnthem. But it wasn’t so. The CIA wasndone in by the media, of which Timenis the leading chevalier sans peur. Andnsome spooks were actually killed bynAmerica-haters in the hysterical limbonthat followed the media’s anti-CIA publicity.nIt all began with one Seymour Hersh,na shady New York T/wej'”investigative”nreporter who, in the mid-’70s, decidednto appropriate his slice of the succulentn”go get ’em” journalistic pie. Using SenatornMcCarthy’s method of obloquy andnguilt-by-association, Mr. Hersh came upnwith some “revelations” based on leaksnby ultraliberal Capitol Hill operatives.nWhy he did it—for reckless self-advancement,nor other reasons—remainsnunclear. Soon a platoon of other “revealers,”nmostly from the ranks of thenCIA itself, and propelled by diversenfeelings, emerged. They routinely presentednthemselves as reformers whonwanted either to improve the social andnmoral substance of the agency, or tonrectify its imperialistic misdeeds, andnas such were mistreated and expelled bynthe “establishment” or “system.” Somenof them were born con men whose careersnin the agency were not lucrativenenough, some—openly procommunist.n