David Talbot: Allen Dulles, CIA and Rise of America's Secret Government

[Douglas Caddy]

David Talbot will be one of six guest speakers on November 19, 2015, at the Third Annual JFK Luncheon and Symposium in Mansfield, Texas. This event is on the eve of JFK Lancer Conference. The event is from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Admission is $50 in advance and $60 at the door. Seating is limited. The announcement on Facebook today states: "JFK The Continuing Inquiry is proud to be partner with JFK Lancer. For information about NID 2015, please visit www.jfklancer.com." I visited this website today but could find no additional information about the Third Annual JFK Luncheon and Symposium. It likely will be posted there soon.

Other announced speakers include Clay Fannin,Sherry Fiester, Beverly Oliver Massegee, Dr. Michael Marcades, Barr McClellan. Special guests will be announced later.

[James DiEugenio]

Oh no, Barr McClellan. Hasn't he done enough damage.

Ouch!

That guy will not go away will he?

[Steven Gaal]

OH !! you foul critics of our honorable CIA !!! ,gaal

##########################################################

The CIA Asks America to Please, Think of the Torturer

'The Rebuttal' won't change any minds

http://warisboring.com/articles/the-cia-asks-america-to-please-think-of-the-torturer/

==================================================================================================

Late last year, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence dropped a redacted 525-page version of its 6,000-page report on the CIA’s torture program. The press,...

Late last year, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence dropped a redacted 525-page version of its 6,000-page report on the CIA’s torture program. The press, including War Is Boring, spent the next month dissecting and digesting the work.

Many Americans knew the CIA had done horrible things to people in the name of national security after 9/11. But few of us realized how awful many of those techniques were. Rectal feeding and hydration entered the lexicon.

“We tortured some folks,” Pres. Barack Obama declared in August 2014.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Naval Institute — a non-profit organization that encourages debate on national security — will publish the CIA’s rebuttal to the Senate’s torture report. The 353-page tome is mostly old news.

The bulk of Rebuttal: The CIA Responds to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Study of Its Detainment and Interrogation Program is previously published work, including the CIA’s official response and the Senate minority response.

Its first 40 pages, however, are an intransigent masterpiece.

Eight editorial essays from agency luminaries such as George Tenet, Porter Goss and Jose Rodriguez, Jr. kick off the book. The pieces read like the grumpy tantrums of adult children begging the reader to remember the context of the torture program and realize the SSCI’s report was a politicized attack by Democrats.

The writers also quibble and squirm over the definition torture and … and, incredibly, beg readers to consider the feelings of the agents who performed the torture.

“I cannot tell you how disgusted my former colleagues and I felt to be labeled ‘torturers’ by the President of the United States,” writes Rodriguez, a 31-year CIA veteran. Rodriguez worries over the possibility that his colleagues might be criminally prosecuted for their actions at black sites.

“Having been the subject of a criminal investigation myself,” Rodriguez explains — investigators questioned him during the Iran-Contra affair. “I can tell you of the terrible effects such investigations have on the morale and well-being of individuals being investigated and their families.”

Remember, this man is writing about the psychological damage that possible pending criminal investigations could have on people who tortured other people. The rest of Rebuttal’s opening essays are also brazen in their myopia.

“We were fully transparent and deceived no one,” former CIA director George Tenet writes in the introduction. This, despite repeated assertions from multiple sources that Tenet and others repeatedly lied about the value of the CIA’s torture program and the intelligence it produced.

The rest of the essays are similarly divorced from reality. Several point out that Democrats compiled the report. Ergo, the document must be a politicized attack. Whining about politicization does not stop the essayists themselves from resorting to similar tactics.

“Successfully fighting an unconventional, asymmetric war being waged on us by brutal radicals will require capturing, holding, and questioning the enemy,” former CIA director Porter Goss writes. “If Chairman Feinstein has a better plan, she has not revealed it.”

I would hazard that Feinstein — who helmed the committee and led the charge for the report’s release — and the other members, as well as the bulk of the American public, understand that fighting an asymmetric war against a radical enemy requires capture, holding and questioning.

Capture and questioning does not necessitate torture. Questioning should not involve forced enemas and games of Russian roulette as described in the Senate report. Nor should it require the capture and detainment of the innocent for 480 days, as was the case with Mohammed Al Asad.

Al Asad ran a store in Tanzania. Local police arrested him and sold him to the CIA. The agency tortured Al Asad and held him in black sites for more than a year. Agents asked him questions but never charged him with a crime.

Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. U.S. Navy photo

The bulk of former CIA deputy director Michael Morell’s essay concern complaints that the media failed every time it wrote or talked about the report.

“‘Senate report?’ … Just not true … it was a report of the Democrats on the Committee, led by the then Chair, Dianne Feinstein,” Morell complained. “The media had a responsibility to make clear that this was a report by only one side of the aisle. By failing to characterize the report as such, the media gave the report more credibility in the eyes of the public than it deserved.”

It’s also not as if Republicans march in lockstep when it comes to defending torture. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine voted to release the documents to the public. And Sen. John McCain of Arizona delivered an impassioned speech on the Senate floor at the report’s release.

“The use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights,” McCain said.

Rebuttal hasn’t phased Feinstein. It “contains nothing new — it recycles the same comments from former CIA officials when the executive summary of the SSCI Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation came out last December,” she told Newsweek.

“These interrogation techniques were brutal and did not produce information that was not already obtained in more traditional and acceptable ways by intelligence and law enforcement.”

“The Senator [Feinstein] said publicly that the CIA had slammed prisoners’ heads into walls,” former NSA director Michael Hayden writes. “I quickly got on her calendar to explain the interrogation technique called ‘walling,’ pushing a detainee’s shoulders into a false plywood wall, all the while protecting their necks with braces or at a minimum towels wrapped around them.”

Hayden’s description of walling, despite his assurances of neck braces and fancy towels, reads a lot like slamming someone’s head into a wall.

“I am sure that I also added that walling was no longer an interrogation technique used by the Agency,” he continues. “The Senator took the briefing but a few days later was again publicly claiming that the Agency had been slamming prisoners’ heads into walls.”

Feinstein claimed the CIA was slamming people’s heads into walls because that’s what they were doing. Dressing up a torture technique in Newspeak — a favorite strategy of America’s intelligence community — doesn’t not make it torture.

The quibbles continue.

“I am convinced that when years later President Obama and his Attorney General said that waterboarding is torture they were referring to the waterboarding method used by the Spanish Inquisition, or by the Japanese during World War II, or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia,” Rodriguez writes.

“Not the waterboarding technique used in SERE,” he continues. “Otherwise hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. military trainers would be guilty of torture.”

SERE is Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape — a program the U.S. military uses to train its soldiers how to survive when trapped in enemy territory. The program’s trainers literally torture recruits to prepare them for the possibility of enemy capture. The CIA enlisted SERE trained psychologists to help adapt the program for its enhanced interrogation techniques.

But it’s hard to believe that Rodriguez doesn’t understand that Obama was talking about the waterboarding techniques used by the CIA. To do otherwise is to miss the context of Obama’s speech. Strange when one of Rebuttal’s chief complaints is the report’s lack of context.

Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. U.S. Navy photo

“The country’s top officials had a genuine, palpable fear of second-wave attacks on the United States, including the possible use of weapons of mass destruction,” Tenet explains in his introduction. “It was in many ways a living hell — a race against time in which we often wondered whether today was the day the country would be attacked again.”

He’s right. The year or so immediately after 9/11 was a time of confusion, paranoia and reactionary politics. America and its leader made decisions — some good, some bad and some awful.

But after such times of national distress there is always a reckoning. The polis must assess actions taken in its name. Leaders must answer for tough decisions.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Washington forcibly interned more than 100,000 Japanese Americans. Today, few look back on the Japanese interment with anything but shame. “We seized their property, we seized their land and we threw them in concentration camps,” Jacob Beser — the man who dropped both Atomic bombs — said of the internment.

“When you are right you are right, when you are wrong, in this country you are damn well wrong. This was a blot in our history.”

But the men running the CIA’s current damage control campaign appear less concerned with America’s loss of moral authority and its use of torture. They appear far more concerned with themselves.

“You get the feeling that your own government has abandoned you,” Rodriguez writes. “You worry that some overly zealous prosecutor will indict you and that justice will fail you. You worry about the financial burden, the legal costs of defending yourself. You worry about the psychological effects on your spouse and children and on your other family members and close friends.”

“To make people go through this agony … was unconscionable.”

Again, Rodriguez is worrying over the mental health of torturers. It is the tell-tale sign of a bully that they revert to the victim when challenged.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Douglas Caddy]

Announcement by David Talbot, Publisher, Hotbooks

http://hotbookspress.com/

Edited September 11, 2015 by Douglas Caddy

[Cliff Varnell]

Another snapshot of the American ruling elite in the late '50's/early 60's, this one has Robert Lovett in it.

http://wpik.org/Src/freeport.html

<quote on, emphasis added>

Freeport has been a bastillion of America's powerful & elite including the Whitney family, Rockefellers, Augustus Long (Texaco), and the Cold War architect Robert Lovett.

In 1957 Freeport Sulphur sign a lucrative nickel contract with the US government, but was caught in 1959 employing an ex-FBI agent to spy on the US official responsible for re-negotiating the nickle contract. In March 1959 the Rockefellers whose Standard Oil interests had known about West Papua's gold and copper since 1936, read in the New York Times that the Papuan Mines Office was now searching for which mountain gold was flowing into the Arafura Sea from. By August 1959 the Freeport company was trying to establish its claim the the Carstenz mountains alleging to the Dutch that Grasberg only held copper.

Before the Rockefellers sent (1961) Michael Rockefeller to this part of West Papua, at the end of 1960 fellow Freeport director Robert Lovett purchased an introduction to Joe Kennedy and his son U.S. President elect John F Kennedy, to whom Lovett suggested people to be appointed to various positions (Sec. of State, Defence, Treasury, etc.). On 28 Dec/1960 Kennedy announced that Lovett's friend McGeorge Bundy was to be the U.S. National Security Adviser. It was McGeorge Bundy who talked the US government into sacrificing the freedoms and human rights of the people of West Papua with the New York Agreement.

Like the attempted blackmail in 1959 of a US official, the New York Agreement and the 1967 Freeport mining license from General Suharto seem to be the products of corruption. It seems unlikely President Kennedy would have trusted the advice of Robert Lovett or McGeorge Bundy if Kennedy had known of Robert Lovett's Freeport connection to West New Guinea.

Freeport corporation

Originally Freeport Texas, the company had became Freeport Sulphur and a bastillion of the elite including the Whitney family, Godfrey Stillman Rockefeller, Chauncey Stillman, Jean Mauze (husband of Abby Rockefeller), Augustus Long (Texaco), and Robert Lovett (friend of Harriman family since childhood, president and chair of Union Pacific Railroad, 1947 Lovett Committee organising US intelligence, US Secretary of Defense 51-53, adviser to Kennedy); before merging with McMoran Oil finally becoming Freeport McMoRan.

<quote off>

Robert Lovett turned down a Cabinet position under Kennedy.

Said he was a Republican, voted for Nixon.

So what?

He was Sec. of Defense under Democrat Truman.

Assistant Secretary of War under Democrat Roosevelt.

Maybe he wasn't all that crazy about Joe Kennedy.

Nevertheless, Robert Lovett and Joe Kennedy were on the same page for getting rid of Allen Dulles.

http://cryptome.org/0001/bruce-lovett.htm

Joe delivered his son to the tender mercies of a WASP Skull & Bones pillar of the Eastern Establishment -- "Bob."

Bob Lovett recommended Dean Rusk for State, Robert McNamara for Defense, C. Douglas Dillon for Treasury, and McGeorge Bundy for National Security Adviser.

To whom did Dean Rusk owe his loyalty?

Harriman's biographer labeled him a man of "ordinary means."

He spent 8 years as head of the Rockefeller Foundation prior to his gig at State.

That Noted Deep Political Thinker Greg Burham sez it's "feeble" and "indefensible" to argue that Rusk's orders restricting the Bay of Pigs operation may have reflected the desires of his Eastern Elite benefactors.

GO__FIGURE

added on edit: may have

Edited September 14, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

The Lovett Committee on Intelligence was formed in 1945.

It had a baby.

They called it -- "a Central Intelligence Agency" way back in 1945...

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945-50Intel/d42

<quote on, emphasis added>

The committee has come to the conclusion that it is not desirable to attempt to cover in this preliminary report all of the subjects enumerated in the Memorandum of the Secretary of War (Tab A). With the approval of the Secretary of War it is therefore restricting the conclusions herein to the two most pressing problems that have been submitted, viz., the question of the establishment of a Central Intelligence Agency for the United States Government, and the future of the Strategic Services Unit now attached to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War. It is intended to supplement this preliminary report at the earliest practicable date with a further report of the other subjects referred to by the Secretary.

<quote off>

Robert Lovett didn't dig what Allen Dulles was doing with his child and he wanted Dulles to lose custody and that's exactly what happened.

Could be a co-incidence, I suppose...

Edited September 14, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Jon G. Tidd]

"Other announced speakers include Clay Fannin,Sherry Fiester, Beverly Oliver Massegee, Dr. Michael Marcades, Barr McClellan. Special guests will be announced later."

The JFK assassination has become an academic debate.

[Steven Gaal]

You mention the British using Lansky to achieve their globalist dreams. How did they get Lansky on their side?

We have to go back, way back, to 1928, to explain this British-Lansky connection. In China, there were three large triads, or gangs, exporting narcotics. Originally, the Kuo Ming Tang and Chiang Kai Shek supported these people. At the same time they were also fighting a prolonged war with the Communists. So for publicity reasons, and to get them back on the good side with the Americans who could help them in the war against the Communists, the KMT publicly went against the triads. At the same time, they made a secret deal with one of these gangs. There was some financial gain to having this narcotics export into the Far East and America, but where they were located were mostly Chinese areas and they wanted to expand and make more money. The book by Douglas Valentine indicates that a State Department man was involved in the Chinese narcotics trade. Apparently, he and other State Department people thought that helping the KMT with the drug trade was a good thing in stopping the spread of communism. Of course, they soon realized it would not be good if American diplomats and officials were caught with loads of narcotics. So they asked themselves, “Can’t we get someone else to do the job?” That is why they reached out to Lansky to be a major drug distributor. This was in the 1930s. So he was in contact with elites possibly before World War II. There is a story that he was called in to help the ONI and the OSS to protect ports in New York and help with the invasion of Sicily. Well, that’s the cover story, because he was possibly in contact with these people before the war. Before World War II and the creation of the OSS and the CIA, ONI was our major intelligence organization, and very likely they knew about Lansky and what he was doing before the war. That just makes sense.

So Lansky was an operative for the ONI, but it is possible that he was more of an operative for the British. This would explain why he helped Castro, which on the surface appears to be against his own interests. But something else was occurring at the same time. He was in contact with the very elites and owners of the Bahamas. Now someone could say that he was just setting that up as a safety valve. But the deeper view is that he knew that Castro was going to win. That’s what his masters, the British, wanted. The British helped him set up his operations in the Bahamas. By the way, in 1961 the British changed their laws on casinos and gambling and by 1964 Lansky had a casino in London. Isn't that amazing?

We have now explained the motivations of Clay Shaw with Permindex, and Lansky working for the British to help Castro. Now let me add that in the early 1960s British Guyana was going to go communist, and the British were pulling out. Apparently Kennedy found out that the British weren’t helping set up an anti-communist regime, but they were letting a communist man take the lead in taking over that country. Now you can have more than one explanation of why the British did it, perhaps because they were pressuring Kennedy to help them with their submarine missile technology, but it does indicate that the British did not mind letting a small, Western Hemisphere country go communist. If you read “Deadly Deception” and understood what it meant, the British were just so afraid and angered of neutral America. They wanted America on its side and doing its will. Beyond the scope of this interview, if you look at what the British elite and banking system did with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and their power behind the Morgan group, you see that the British were trying to financially control America.

======

ANY ONE SEE parallel British Guyana and Cuba ????? . Britain got Polaris Submarine Technology and then started helping the USA put a anti communist government in British Guyana. Was this Coincidence or Conspiracy ??

The official view of the British Foreign Service was that arm sales to Castro prevented him from being too dependent on RUSSIA, Tito-ize Castro ,so to speak.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ONLY PART OF 79 items BRITISH GUIANA. YES THE USA WAS WORRIED IT WOULD GO COMMUNIST. BRITIAN ONLY HELPED BRITISH GUIANA NOT GO COMMUNIST ONLY AFTER POLARIS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERED TO THEM. Was this Coincidence or Conspiracy ??

MAYBE BUNDY/ HARRIMAN ARE NOT LOYAL TO USA BUT GREAT BRITIAN. JUST SAAAAAYING. gaal

-----------

The Collection of Presidential Briefing Products from 1961 to 1969

http://www.foia.cia.gov/collection/PDBs

Search results

1. LETTER TO J. EDGAR HOOVER FROM JOHN A. MCCONE RE LETTER OF 23 MAY ABOUT COMMUNIST INTENTIONS TOWARD BRITISH GUIANA

   intentions toward. British Guiana.- AIr. Belmont...'... Mr. Mfr. Cal?&ic.n.._ I Mr., lrvans.,;41r.. ...

2. ABORTED PLOT IS SUSPECTED IN HAITI

   RECORDED' 8 APR 19 1963 wwww 2- OTEII;R COUNTRIES 15 April 1963 BRITISH GUIANA FACING LABOR STRIFE Paris AFP ... wiihin"three days between British Guiana Premier Cheddi Jagan's.ruling People's Progressive Party ... and the Guiana Trade Unions'Council (TUC), representing over g0 percent of the colony's 55,000 workers. ...

3. DEPUTIES' MEETING

   at the Deputies' Meeting on Monday, 4 May. Mr. Amory: a. Reported that in a recent election in British Guiana ...

4. INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS OF BRITISH GUIANA

   CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP61-00391R000200240004-9 U 7 July 5, 1958 REPORT ...

5. INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS OF BRITISH GUIANA

   CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP61-00391R000200240003-0 U 1 July 5, 1958 REPORT ...

6. THE SITUATION AND PROSPECTS IN BRITISH GUIANA

   CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79R00904A000800020037-4 S 13 February 3, 1962 MF ...

7. BRITISH GUIANA

   CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP67B00446R000600260027-9 C 4 January 5, 1965 BRIEF ...

8. YANKEE COUP... 1964 OVERTHROW OF GUIANA LEFTISTS BLAMED ON UNION BANKROLLED BY CIA

   CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP75-00149R000400180002-0 K 1 March 3, 1967 NSPR ...

9. INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS OF BRITISH GUIANA

   CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79-00979A000100100002-3 U 8 July 5, 1958 REPORT ...

10. TRANSMITTAL OF CIA/RR G/E-86, INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS OF BRITISH GUIANA (FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY)

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79-00979A000100100001-4 U 3 August 3, 1958 MF ...

11. IMPENDING ELECTIONS IN MARTINIQUE AND FRENCH GUIANA

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP91T01172R000300050036-6 S 2 February 5, 1955 MEMORANDUM ...

12. POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF STRIKES IN BRITISH GUIANA

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79T00429A001100030020-0 S 2 March 3, 1963 MEMORANDUM ...

13. BRITISH GUIANA ELECTIONS

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79S00427A000100060027-4 T 11 July 5, 1961 MEMORANDUM ...

14. BRITISH GUIANA APPROACHES A CRITICAL ELECTION

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79-00927A004700020003-8 S 10 October 5, 1964 REPORT ...

15. THE GUIANAS: DEVELOPMENT AND DISCORD

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP84-00825R000100560001-4 S 15 November 1, 1968 IM ...

16. CROSSCURRENTS IN BRITISH GUIANA

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79-00927A004300020002-3 S 10 November 5, 1963 REPORT ...

17. BRITISH GUIANA ELECTIONS OF 21 AUGUST 1961

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79S00427A000500020001-2 S 6 June 1, 1961 IM ...

18. MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, 'THE SITUATION AND PROSPECTS IN BRITISH GUIANA (INCORPORATING SUGGESTED WHD CHANGES)' DATED 6 MARCH 1962

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79R00904A000800020049-1 S 2 February 5, 1962 MF ...

19. BRITISH GUIANA

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP82R00025R000400220014-3 C 4 January 5, 1965 BRIEF ...

20. ANNEX TO MEMORANDUM ON BRITIAN GUIANA ELECTIONS DATED 9 AUGUST

    CREST CREST: 25-Year Program Archive CIA-RDP79S00427A000500040018-2 S 4 MEMORANDUM ...

Edited September 16, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Douglas Caddy]

David Talbot writes on Facebook today:

With the publication of my new book, "The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America's Secret Government," less than a month away, I want to shamelessly tease you all with some tidbits from the book.

So here's the first one: Among the more despicable things that Allen Dulles, America's most legendary spymaster, did was to collaborate with prominent Nazis before, during and after World War II. One of the worst war criminals with whom Dulles consorted was Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's intelligence chief on the bloodlands of the Eastern Front. After the war, Dulles helped install Gehlen as West Germany's powerful intelligence chief. The two men maintained a chatty, cozy relationship throughout the rest of their lives, exchanging Christmas cards, gifts etc.

Dulles brought Gehlen to America for periodic visits -- on one such trip, the CIA even treated Gehlen to seats at Yankee Stadium for the final game of the epic 1951 "subway World Series" that pit the Yankees' aging legend Joe DiMaggio and rookie star Mickey Mantle against another future Hall of Famer, the NY Giants' Willie Mays.

As DiMaggio played in the final game of his career (with the Yankees winning the close game and taking the series), Gehlen watched Joltin' Joe trot off into the sunset -- instead of facing a war crimes tribunal, as he should have.

[Cliff Varnell]

I hope David Talbot can explain why Allen Dulles went down to Puerto Rico April 16-17, 1961 instead of staying home to run an operation the failure of which lots of folks insist was designed to force JFK into military action against Castro.

I've yet to hear an explanation that makes sense.

I think it was something like this...

"Kid, this ain't yer night. We're takin' the price on Wilson."

They took the price on Helms.

[James DiEugenio]

That is interesting.

I didn't know that Dulles was that close with Gehlen personally to the point of getting him into see big time baseball.

Keep the nibbles coming Dave.

[Chris Newton]

Wasn't Dulles Donovan's protege? I think it was Donovan that originally argued for a covert action requirement.

[James DiEugenio]

Donovan ran the OSS during the war and Dulles worked for him.

After the war both men campaigned hard to get the CIA established and both men wanted to be the Director.

But Truman went with the military guys under the advice of Souers who was his guru on intelligence at the time.

But then two things happened: 1.) Bedell Smith got sick, and 2.) Foster Dulles became Sec of State.

Smith brought Dulles in as his Deputy when he read the Dulles-Correa-Jackson report on how to reorganize the CIA. When he got sick, Foster got Ike to give Allen his dream job as DCI. And with his brother to protect him, and Ike a Cold Warrior anyway, Allen turned the CIA into a nightmare for the Third World.

CIA now became Corporate Interests of America.

Donovan was all but forgotten.

Edited September 18, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Gene Kelly]

Cliff/Jim:

I've been studying Averell Harriman and his affiliations. What puzzles me is the fact that on December 6th, Jacqueline Kennedy moved to the Georgetown house that Undersecretary of State W. Averell Harriman had provided for her use until she was able to acquire a property of her own. Strange move, given that he's a possible high-level plotter.

Gene

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff/Jim:

I've been studying Averell Harriman and his affiliations. What puzzles me is the fact that on December 6th, Jacqueline Kennedy moved to the Georgetown house that Undersecretary of State W. Averell Harriman had provided for her use until she was able to acquire a property of her own. Strange move, given that he's a possible high-level plotter.

Gene

Gene, Harriman put Jackie up at his pad the night of 11/22, according to his biographer.

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Cliff Varnell