Jump to content
The Education Forum

Joseph Trento

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

5,264 profile views

Joseph Trento's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Many terrific NASA employees were ignored by management. The saddest example of this was Columbia. Management in Houston knew the extent of the damage to the shuttle wing but ignored what the experts said. They also ignored suggestions of a rescue mission prior to retry. The late Roger Boisjoly was in touch with NASA engineers who were frantic to try an Apollo 13 type rescue.
  2. NASA management was completely changed under Nixon and Spiro Agnew. Contractors who had been held on a tight lease by Jim Webb were given free reign. NASA inspectors were removed from contractor factories. The good Apollo managers were ignored and often demoted. Webb told me that after the Apollo 204 file he did two things. First on the day of the astronauts funeral at Arlington he called the head of North American Rockwell in his office and said he would either sign a new contract to finish the Apollo program or Webb would switch to another company. Once he got Rockwell to sign Webb resigned because he felt he would be a political distraction. Paine was forced out by Nixon.
  3. Leadership. Kennedy had James Webb and Johnson Tom Paine. Both men were tough visionaries. Nixon hated Kennedy's program and treated NASA with contempt. he more than anyone destroyed the NASA culture by turning NASA over to defense contractors. Carter was an engineer and understood NASA and had he had a second term may have brought it back. Reagan treated NASA as a Hollywood prop and hope rid of a competent defense contractor type and replace him with an inexperienced ideologue. That individual was not even in the office when Challenger was launched. Eyewitnesses say that he thought the explosion was part of the normal launch process (the witness was a powerful Congressman). Bush I, Clinton and Bush II gave space lip service but provided no effective leadership. Bush II and Clinton's Administrations was terrible. Obama treated the program with greater realism and his partnership with private industry may help NASA get back to the real serious stuff. But while we all long for the days of Apollo I am afraid that is gone forever because the public does not have the political will. Considering that no program advanced our society faster it seems foolish not to reach for the stars.
  4. "Conspiracy theorist" is a charge the right and establishment uses as McCarthy and his henchman used "commie sympathizer." I and others have been accused of it. Sometimes you get labelled for just writing about someone else’s views, as I did about Angleton's in Secret History. Here is the deal: It takes just a couple of politicians to cook up a conspiracy. They happen all the time. The press has become fearful of being labelled. Would it be fair to say a group of neo-cons cooked up a way of getting Bush to go into Iraq? I think so. But rather then letting the public focus on getting at the truth, we call the reporters and people who dig names, "conspiracy theorists" so no one will listen to what they find. It is the oldest technique in the world and the Bush Administration and their right wing friends have made it an art form. They having talking heads actually calling people conspiracy theorists for stories that have already proven out. It really is the new McCarthyism.
  5. I don't consider myself a historian. I have been labelled that by others. I think historians rely too much on documents and since most documents are written to cover your ass and can't be totally relied on. I wanted to find out things really worked when I was young. I also grew up believing life is complicated and government officials don't always tell the truth. That combination made me a terror as a young reporter for my school newspapers. I think journalism is the best profession one who is curious can go into providing you don't worry about a career. If you worry about offending bosses, getting into the right clubs and winning awards you will be lost. They should compliment each other. I think journalists have the opportunity to interview participants in history and should treat those interviews with enormous respect and get to as many important issues as they can. Because that interview may be the tool a historian a hundred years from now uses to put pieces of a story together. What I think is important. There are hundreds of stories I would like to do, but practicality forces you to focus on a few and try to do a decent job. Sure. You get it from all ends. Because early in my career I had the nerve to relook at Sy Hersh's Chile reporting I was punished by being excluded from working for a major establishment paper. Abe Rosenthal saw to that. Now at nearly 59, I find myself the target of my own government and a few others. You make liberals mad and you make conservatives mad. But none of that matters. All that matters is getting to the work. We all have a limited time here. You do your best then let the chips fall. Yes. Usually financial pressure through publishers and networks, sometimes foundations. So you pick your shots and try to get the stories right. I have lost book contracts and grants because of political pressures. Some of the most liberal organizations are the worst in displaying this kind of political correctness. The saddest thing for me is when new facts you have uncovered get lost in the political exploitation of new information. "Conspiracy theorist" is a charge the right and establishment uses as McCarthy and his henchman used "commie sympathizer." I and others have been accused of it. Sometimes you get labelled for just writing about someone else’s views, as I did about Angleton's in Secret History. Here is the deal: It takes just a couple of politicians to cook up a conspiracy. They happen all the time. The press has become fearful of being labelled. Would it be fair to say a group of neo-cons cooked up a way of getting Bush to go into Iraq? I think so. But rather then letting the public focus on getting at the truth, we call the reporters and people who dig names, "conspiracy theorists" so no one will listen to what they find. It is the oldest technique in the world and the Bush Administration and their right wing friends have made it an art form. They having talking heads actually calling people conspiracy theorists for stories that have already proven out. It really is the new McCarthyism. The House Select Committee got a lot right and ignored important stuff concerning the Soviets and Castro. You rely on your gut and experience. You test sources with opposing perspectives against each other and you talk to enough people involved to get a good approximation of what happened and your force yourself to keep your mind open that there is always more. I laugh when people claim to have written the definitive anything. Nothing is definitive. History is a moving target based on what new information that might emerge.
  6. I don't consider myself a historian. I have been labelled that by others. I think historians rely too much on documents and since most documents are written to cover your ass and can't be totally relied on. I wanted to find out things really worked when I was young. I also grew up believing life is complicated and government officials don't always tell the truth. That combination made me a terror as a young reporter for my school newspapers. I think journalism is the best profession one who is curious can go into providing you don't worry about a career. If you worry about offending bosses, getting into the right clubs and winning awards you will be lost. They should compliment each other. I think journalists have the opportunity to interview participants in history and should treat those interviews with enormous respect and get to as many important issues as they can. Because that interview may be the tool a historian a hundred years from now uses to put pieces of a story together. What I think is important. There are hundreds of stories I would like to do, but practicality forces you to focus on a few and try to do a decent job. Sure. You get it from all ends. Because early in my career I had the nerve to relook at Sy Hersh's Chile reporting I was punished by being excluded from working for a major establishment paper. Abe Rosenthal saw to that. Now at nearly 59, I find myself the target of my own government and a few others. You make liberals mad and you make conservatives mad. But none of that matters. All that matters is getting to the work. We all have a limited time here. You do your best then let the chips fall. Yes. Usually financial pressure through publishers and networks, sometimes foundations. So you pick your shots and try to get the stories right. I have lost book contracts and grants because of political pressures. Some of the most liberal organizations are the worst in displaying this kind of political correctness. The saddest thing for me is when new facts you have uncovered get lost in the political exploitation of new information. "Conspiracy theorist" is a charge the right and establishment uses as McCarthy and his henchman used "commie sympathizer." I and others have been accused of it. Sometimes you get labelled for just writing about someone else’s views, as I did about Angleton's in Secret History. Here is the deal: It takes just a couple of politicians to cook up a conspiracy. They happen all the time. The press has become fearful of being labelled. Would it be fair to say a group of neo-cons cooked up a way of getting Bush to go into Iraq? I think so. But rather then letting the public focus on getting at the truth, we call the reporters and people who dig names, "conspiracy theorists" so no one will listen to what they find. It is the oldest technique in the world and the Bush Administration and their right wing friends have made it an art form. They having talking heads actually calling people conspiracy theorists for stories that have already proven out. It really is the new McCarthyism. The House Select Committee got a lot right and ignored important stuff concerning the Soviets and Castro. You rely on your gut and experience. You test sources with opposing perspectives against each other and you talk to enough people involved to get a good approximation of what happened and your force yourself to keep your mind open that there is always more. I laugh when people claim to have written the definitive anything. Nothing is definitive. History is a moving target based on what new information that might emerge.
  7. I knew Henery Kaiser’s top aid and he told me and confirmed much of this before his death.
  8. John Simkin: (1) The first chapter takes a look at the activities of Allen Dulles and Prescott Bush. You look in some detail at Bush’s business dealing during the Second World War. On page 3 you state that John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles were both involved in covering up Bush’s dealings with Nazi Germany. Of course, McCloy and Dulles were also both members of the Warren Commission. Is that relevant? Joe Trento: Well certainly they were top leaders in the establishment here who would not rock the boat or come up with any conclusions that might lead to WW III. John Simkin: (2) McCloy was also German High Commissioner after the war. In February, 1951, he ordered the release of Alfred Krupp from Landsberg Prison. Krupp was tried as a war criminal at Nuremberg. He was accused of plundering occupied territories and being responsible for the barbaric treatment of prisoners of war and concentration camp inmates. Krupp was found guilty of being a major war criminal and sentenced to twelve years in prison and had all his wealth and property confiscated. When he was released, Krupp had his is property, valued at around $45 million, and his numerous companies were also restored to him. He was not the only wealthy war criminal released by McCloy. Is it possible that Krupp and his Nazi colleagues went on the fund CIA illegal covert activities? In other words, was McCloy part of CIA’s “Secret Team” as early as 1951? If that is the case, could this be the reason why he was on the Warren Commission with Dulles in 1964? Joe Trento: I am aware, please see Secret History of the CIA. Only as that they were trusted members of the establishment and Johnson didn’t want panic here. John Simkin: (3) On page 7 you quote John Loftus to argue that “Bush and his associates did not invest in Nazi-controlled companies out of any ideological devotion to Hitler, but because this was simply good business practice”. I would like to challenge this proposition. A significant number of businessmen in the US and the UK supported the Nazis in the 1930s for “ideological reasons”. The main reason for this was that they supported the way the Nazis were dealing with the threat of socialism and communism. Remember, the first thing that Hitler did when he gained power was to put left-wing activists in concentration camps (the Jews were dealt with at a later date). The most high profile supporter of the Nazi Party in the UK was the media magnate, Lord Rothermere. Throughout the 1930s he used his newspaper empire to support Hitler and was the leading advocate of what became known as “appeasement”. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/BUrothermere.htm Recently released MI5 documents show that there were a significant number of people within the British establishment that supported Nazi Germany even after the outbreak of the war. Some of these characters even supplied the Nazis with classified information. See for example the activities of the Right Club (interestingly they were working with people from inside the American Embassy) below: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWrightclub.htm Joe Trento: You are right about British support of Hitler in the upper classes but you cannot lump Bush into this. Your characterization of Prescott Bush is unfair. There is no evidence he was a man who was ideological supportive of the Nazi’s. Like many American businessmen – and British he could be blinded by money. I knew McCloy, he was a patriot and did not take part in the murder or coverup of JFK. He was on the Warren Commision because he was one of the most distinguished Americans in 1963. John Simkin: Is it therefore not possible that people like Bush, Dulles and McCloy did have ideological reasons for their political activities? After all, the main thing that drove the CIA agenda was the perceived fear of communism. Joe Trento: Come on – there is no basis to indicate any Bush believed in Hitler – just money. I remind you that the Royal family had a very cozy relationship with their German cousins. Don’t overreach. They hated communism – by the way so do I. I don’t think fear is what this was about. They had a pragmatic approach to eliminating it and fighting it. Sometimes they over did it. Often innocents suffered. What drove the CIA agenda was commercial US interests and bureaucratic survival for this unsuccessful agency. John Simkin: (4) On page 9 you mention that Prescott Bush was a “close friend and adviser to William Pawley”. Are you aware that some people believe Pawley was one of those right-wing businessmen who helped fund the assassination of JFK? Joe Trento: I think that is nonsense. John Simkin: (5) I found the section on Paul Helliwell very interesting. You make a good case that he was the CIA officer who originally came up with the idea of working closely with those involved in the drug trade in order to fund illegal covert operations. I was interested to read that he was transferred to Miami in 1960 to provide business cover for its Cuban operations. You state on page 29 that Helliwell was CIA paymaster for JM/WAVE. This is where Helliwell becomes very close to Ted Shackley. Is it not possible that Shackley’s “Secret Team” dates back to the early 1960s and might have been a reaction to the Bay of Pigs disaster? Joe Trento: Shackley prospered on the Bay of Pigs disaster and was promoted in the aftermath of it. John Simkin: (6) In Chapter 4 you outline the CIA career of Edwin Wilson. You say that Wilson first met Clines in 1960. Is there any evidence that Wilson was involved with Shackley and Clines at JM/WAVE? Joe Trento: Yes there is. He worked with many of these Cubans in the Congo and later Laos and Vietnam. John Simkin: (7) You point out that Chi Chi Quintero and Felix Rodriguez were important members of Ted Shackley’s Secret Team. Were they working for Shackley at JM/WAVE in 1963? Joe Trento: Yes. John Simkin: (8) Your account of Shackley’s activities is very similar to the one provided by Daniel Sheehan in his affidavit (12th December, 1986). However, you do not mention Sheehan in your book. As you know, Shackley took a successful legal action against Sheehan. Do you think Shackley would have taken you to court if he was alive today? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsheehan.htm Joe Trento: No, because I didn’t make up what I wrote. Sheehan largely lifted what was right in his allegations from writers like me. I consider Sheenan one of the reasons Shackley wasn’t exposed till now, Sheenan went with rumors Shackley planted and spread them and nearly ruined the life of Martha Honey with the law suit that followed. His role in other cases, including the death of a Marine Colonel in California had a stunningly similar outcome of family members of the Colonel. Sheenan is no hero. John Simkin: (9) Nor do you mention Gene Wheaton in your book. He was of course Sheehan’s main source in 1986. Wheaton also told Sheehan that Shackley’s Secret Team was involved in the assassination of JFK. Wheaton repeated this claim to the Anne Buttimer, Chief Investigator for the Assassination Records Review Board, in July, 1995, and in a filmed interview in 2005. He claimed that Carl Jenkins, Chi Chi Quintero and Irving Davidson were also involved in the assassination. Did you come across this suggestion during your research? Joe Trento: I consider Wheaton in the same class as Sheenan. John Simkin: (10) Wheaton, Jenkins and Quintero are still alive (as are two other members of the Secret Team, Felix Rodriguez and Luis Posada). Did you interview any of these men for your book? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKposada.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKroderiguez.htm Joe Trento: I can’t comment. John Simkin: (11) On page 247 you describe William Buckley as “one of Shackley’s oldest and dearest friends.” Where did you get this information from? Do you know when they first met? Leslie Cockburn pointed out in her book, Out of Control (1987) that Buckley had “to approve CIA assassinations undertaken by the Shackley organizations”. Did you find any evidence of Cockburn’s claim while researching your book? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuckleyWF.htm Joe Trento: Cockburn is wrong. Shackley was well above Buckley in Agency rank. I got the information from family members and colleagues of both men.
  9. Thanks for your response. Is this just your hunch, or have you spoken to some of your friends in intelligence about this? How is Wheaton viewed in that community? Is he just a wanna-be or once-was upset because he was cut-out of the loop? Did William Corson have anything to say about him? Part of the reason he appears to have credibility is because we know so little about him. Anything you can add might be of help. Experience. Specifically his activities on Pan Am 103. Until I finish this airline security book I will not have time to look at the documents. I should have it wrapped up in the Spring.
  10. Thanks for your response. Is this just your hunch, or have you spoken to some of your friends in intelligence about this? How is Wheaton viewed in that community? Is he just a wanna-be or once-was upset because he was cut-out of the loop? Did William Corson have anything to say about him? Part of the reason he appears to have credibility is because we know so little about him. Anything you can add might be of help. Experience. Specifically his activities on Pan Am 103. Until I finish this airline security book I will not have time to look at the documents. I should have it wrapped up in the Spring.
  11. I don’t believe a word Gene Wheaton says about anything.
  12. I am not convinced that Cram’s criticism of you in based on your report on events in Canada. It has to be remembered that the purpose of this report was for the briefing of senior CIA officials. In fact, he only spends a couple of sentences on your book: “Not every book on espionage and counterintelligence published between 1977 and 1992 is reviewed; only those that are historically accurate, at least in general, and were influential are assessed. Excluded are some recent works like Widows, by William R. Corson and Susan and Joseph Trento because they are not reputable by even the generally low standards of most counterintelligence writing.” (page 1). He also mentions you on page 8 when he claims you wrote a series of articles in 1979/1980 where you “launched a number of charges against Angleton, including some erroneous information about certain cases.” Cram’s real target is not you but Edward Epstein, who he believes participated with Angleton in a massive disinformation campaign. I did not attempt to defend the views of Petty. At first he was also taken in by Angleton’s disinformation campaign. It was only when he was carrying out research into Angleton’s proposed moles in the CIA that he came up with the idea that Angleton was working for the Soviets. As I have already said, I believe that Petty got this wrong. Cram does not give the impression that he believed this theory either. I do not agree that James Schlesinger was a fool. Nor did Angleton agree with this assessment. In fact the two men got on very well together. Schlesinger made no attempt to sack Angleton although he accepted that it was incompetent as well as being mentally ill. Schlesinger was clearly Nixon’s man who posed a serious threat to the CIA. Soon after he was appointed Schlesinger was heard to say: “The clandestine service was Helms’s Praetorian Guard. It had too much influence in the Agency and was too powerful within the government. I am going to cut it down to size.” This he did and over the next three months over 7 per cent of CIA officers lost their jobs. On 9th May, 1973, Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about “activities outside the CIA’s charter”. There were several employees who had been trying to complain about the illegal CIA activities for some time. As Cord Meyer pointed out, this directive “was a hunting license for the resentful subordinate to dig back into the records of the past in order to come up with evidence that might destroy the career of a superior whom he long hated.” The result of this investigation was the production of what has become known as the “Family Jewels”. This then became information that Cram was able to use in his investigation. I would be interested in hearing further information about Tom Mangold being discredited (are you also making the same claim against David Wise and David C. Martin). In the UK Mangold is a much respected investigative journalist who has a long record of disclosing corruption in government. I have read all three books and I agree with Cleveland Cram’s judgement of Mangold, Martin and Wise. In fact one cannot fail to be impressed by the logic of Cram’s assessment of the books he reviews. Cram had been recruited into the CIA from the Harvard’s history department (it followed the publication of his PhD). It shows. Intellectually he is head and shoulders above the rest of the senior figures in the CIA. It also has to be remembered that Cram was also the same man who spent six years researching the History of the Counterintelligence Staff 1954-1974. As David Wise points out in his book Molehunt (1992): "When Cram finally finished it in 1981... he had produced twelve legal-sized volumes, each three hundred to four hundred pages. Cram's approximately four-thousand-page study has never been declassified. It remains locked in the CIA's vaults." Cram was able to use this information when writing Moles and Molehunters. I suspect he knows more about what was really going on in the CIA during this period that anyone else, dead or alive. As you probably know, Epstein admitted in May 1989 that Angleton was probably involved in a disinformation campaign. I would be interested to know if you also accept that now. Were you used by Angleton to spread false stories that the KGB/Castro were responsible for the assassination of JFK? If you do still believe this theory, what was the motive? Also, how did they managed to persuade the FBI and CIA to cover-up the crime? Why did LBJ not order an immediate invasion of Cuba? In fact, why did LBJ also help to cover-up KGB/Castro involvement in the assassination? I don’t really know how to reply to you. Cram – like Leonard McCoy and others are all out of a class of Agency apologists.
  13. Cleve Cram had a reason not to like me or Angleton. I reported in the 1970’s that Angleton conducted operations on his turf in Ottawa (where he was COS). The details of that operation involved Bennett and Nick Shadrin. Cram and his colleague – a former Russian desk officer and later CI official hated all my CIA reported. In both cases these men trie to pass on disinformation and both were caught at it. Cram was also angry because I got a hold of his report on Angleton draft form and published a newspaper version of it. If you had read my books then you should be aware I included Petty’s views. Petty was a glory hound who tiook credit for the work of others. His report on Tenant Bagley was discredited not by Petty b ut by the greatest case officer in CIA history, the late George Kisevalter. Your little history review in or note leave out a great deal. I think it is fairly clear your knowledge about Angleton and Schlesinger is less than complete. No CIA head was less respected than Schlesinger among the rank and file , Angleton thought him a fool. He told me that only a fool would try follow Helm’s who clear would still play a leadership role at the CIA as Ambassador to Iran. I am afraid I have repeatedly been over the territory you cite and just can’t come to the same conclusions. Mangold’s book was so discredited – it was a planned attack on Angleton – largely because it used such poor sources as Gerald Post etc., that the publisher pulled the rug out from under it shortly after it was published. The mole was Igor Orlov and Angleton was right to chase down ever agent associated with Orlov. Orlov’s son called me the other day to tell me he had just read Secret History and for the first time understood why his father had done many of the things he did.
  14. I think Jim Angleton's view that the Soviet's played a role in the assassination makes sense because of the internal power struggles going on during the time period. As to the notion the CIA was capable of killing the President - I just don't believe it. They were not competent enough to kill Castro. But I do think the events outlined in Secret History - especially those things done behind Kennedy's back in Viet Nam in the 1963 overthrow of Diem and Nhu raise real questions about who was running the CIA. The Soviet's could not have gotten a better result than those murders. We know that Kennedy's orders to remove the brothers and take them to Taiwan were ignored. I think this bolster's Angleton's view that this was all tied to a bigger Soviet plot. One thing I am certain of - if God appeared with answers to the Kennedy murder a lot of people would not believe what the deity would have to say. I will be revisiting the Kennedy case when I write Bill Corson's biography. As your members may recall it was Corson, who was very close to the President who Lyndon Johnson dispatched to Dallas in the immediate aftermath.
×
×
  • Create New...