To the Editor:

I much enjoyed Maurice Gold-bloom’s “The Fulbright Revolt” [September 1966] and thought it most interesting and well done.

(Sen.) Claiborne Pell
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.

_____________

To the Editor:

Mr. Goldbloom’s article was most interesting and well written. I especially appreciated the historical perspective from which he wrote.

. . . My only quarrel would be with his last few paragraphs where he seems to suggest that the Committee is acting out of vindictiveness when it undertakes to make substantial changes in the aid program. As a matter of fact, the Committee for some years has tried to get the AID people to limit voluntarily the number of countries receiving one kind or another of American aid. The theory is that aid should be concentrated, is not a tool in every ambassador’s kit, and may sometimes hurt U.S. policy more than it helps. The argument that aid leads to deeper involvement is, of course, one of the factors which has influenced the Committee. . . .

Carl Marcy
Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.

_____________

Mr. Goldbloom writes:

I certainly did not intend to suggest that the Committee was motivated by vindictiveness in its approach to the Foreign Aid Bill. Rather, I indicated my belief that an understandable feeling of frustration, in the face of the administration’s impermeability to reason, has sometimes produced a distorted perspective on the issues involved.

_____________