Jump to content
The Education Forum

CIA backed Eugene McCarthy in '68 v. RFK


Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully

Where's the beef? I.E. what evidence do you have to back your claims?

"…when a dove of more conservative cast, Gene McCarthy, decided to oppose Johnson for the nomination, the CIA promptly infiltrated his campaign.

Names to conjure with: Allard Lowenstein, Curtis Gans and Sam Brown."

"When Robert Kennedy…entered the nomination stakes, two more 'former' CIA men, Thomas Finney and Thomas McCoy joined McCarthy's campaign."

Citations indicating these guys were ex-CIA and that any of them other than Finney worked for McCarthy. Don't forget that Sam Brown, Thomas McCarthy and Thomas Finney are common names. Even if you find citations for men by those names having worked for the CIA and men by those names having worked for McCarthy you'll have to come up with evidence they were the same people.

..........................

THOMAS D. FINNEY JR., A 'SUPERLAWYER,' DIES; Partner of ...

Washington Firm Gave Advice to Two Presidents and to High-Ranking Politicians Praised by Muskie 'Had Good Judgment' Father Also a Lawyer

New York Times - Feb 1, 1978

... Md. Mr. Finney, a partner of the law firm of Clifford, Glass, Mcllwain Finney, ... for the Democratic Presidential -Adlai E. Stevenson in 1960, Eugene J. McCarthy in ... 1952 to 1955, served with the Central' Intelligence. Agency in Copenhagen.

http://www.washingto...20502999_2.html

Thomas F. McCoy CIA officer, political consultant

5 December, 2009

Thomas F. McCoy, 91, a retired CIA officer who later had a long career as a political consultant, died Nov. 25 of heart disease at his home in Chevy Chase.

Mr. McCoy joined the CIA in 1951 and served as a political officer in Rome for six years in the 1950s. He had additional overseas assignments in Spain and Southeast Asia before he retired from the agency in 1968.

As a friend of Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy's (D-Minn.), Mr. McCoy joined his campaign for the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination and became national campaign co-chairman. He was primarily responsible for fundraising and campaign finance.

In 1969, Mr. McCoy opened Washington Information Associates, a political consulting firm with a specialty in fundraising. He worked on many national and statewide campaigns before his retirement in 1993. He was considered an expert on campaign finance and often testified before the Federal Election Commission.

Thomas Frederick McCoy was born in New Haven, Conn., and attended George Washington University. He served in the Army during World War II and was selected for the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime forerunner to the CIA. While serving in London, he met his future wife, another OSS employee.

After the war, he ran a frozen-foods business in Connecticut before moving to Washington to join the CIA. .......Survivors include his wife of 64 years, Priscilla Johnson McCoy of Chevy Chase; four children, ....

(In addition, Larry Merthan, mentioned in the following page image, was the husband of William King Harvey's secretary, Rita Chapowicki Merthan, a CIA employee for 16 years. Rita's sister was a Navy nurse installed in the White House in 1961 by Dr. George Burkley, and unprecedented appointment at that time.

.....In February 1961, Navy Nurses LTJG Elizabeth Chapowicki and LTJG Dolores Cornelius are assigned to the White House Medical Unit (WHMU). Although, Navy Nurses attended to the medical care of the president as far back as the Woodrow Wilson administration, these two nurses are the first military nurses to serve in the WHMU. .....

She stayed in her White House position for the rest of JFK's presidency and all of LBJ's. Larry Merthan's wife, Rita, later resigned from CIA and was appointed a principal assistant to Rosalind Carter during Jimmy Carter's entire term. One Chapowicki sister or the other was in a sensitive White House position during almost all of the terms of three democratic presidents.)

Here is a later "bit" from the Chapowicki sisters' brother.:

Sorry.... I couldn't help but add my two cents to this in the comments section below this biased "article" on the

Joe Kennedy III campaign.

Background:

http://educationforu...30 and:

Worcester Telegram & Gazette : ELECTION DAY IN THE REGION

Worcester Telegram Gazette - Jan 20, 2010

WORCESTER - Edwin H. Chadwick, an an 85-year-old Army veteran of World War II, had been holding a homemade sign all day on Shore Drive at the Unitarian Universalist Church.

"At midnight tonight, the Kennedy era will be over," read the sign, in a show of support for Scott Brown.

A registered Democrat, Mr. Chadwick voted Republican yesterday morning.

He was still outside at 2:45 pm and planned to be there "until my feet get too cold." "We're going to change from a one-party system in this state," he said, noting he wanted President Barack Obama's health care plan to fail because he is satisfied with his current coverage.

"We've had a gang in power." Jackie Leone, election official for Ward 9, Precinct 1, at Temple Emanuel, said there were already lines when the polls opened.

Clean for Gene: Eugene McCarthy's 1968 Presidential Campaign - Page 76

books.google.com George Rising - 1997 - 156 pages - Google eBook

PriscillaJohnsonMcCoyFinneyMerthanGeneMcCarthy.jpg

Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., And ... - Page 169

books.google.com Nick Kotz - 2006 - 560 pages

PriscillaJohnsonDullesFinneyMississippi.jpg

Beautiful Imperialist: China Perceives America, 1972-1990

books.google.com David L. Shambaugh - 1993 - 326 pages - Preview

He retained Dean Rusk from the original Kennedy administration and replaced McNamara with Clark Clifford, an "agent" of the Rockefellers. Douglas Dillon's successors at Treasury represented the New York investment houses of Goldman.....

http://consortiumnew...nixons-treason/

Admissions on Nixon’s ‘Treason’

June 14, 2012

Special Report: Definitive proof of a historical mystery is often elusive, even with archival documents and memoirs. Skeptics can always say some witness or some evidence isn’t perfect. But the case that Richard Nixon sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks in 1968 to win that pivotal election is clear, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Republicans have long bristled at allegations that Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign helped sink Vietnam peace talks to win the election, but Nixon’s Asian counterparts – both in Saigon and Washington – have been much more open about the collaboration, what President Lyndon Johnson privately called “treason.”....

......“As the Democrats steered with all due haste away from the Indochinese involvement they had engineered, I was increasingly attracted to the Republican side,” Bui Diem wrote. “As far as courting Republicans went, there were few places in Washington like Anna Chennault’s penthouse apartment at the Watergate. …

“By October [1968] I was back in touch with Anna, who was now co-chairman of Nixon’s fundraising committee, and Senator John Tower, chairman of the Republican Key Issues Committee. I also got together with George [H.W.] Bush and other Republicans from whom I was trying to elicit support for a strong Vietnam policy.”

Bui Diem’s reference to Bush may seem odd, since Bush at the time was only a freshman congressman from Texas. However, Bush, the son of former Sen. Prescott Bush and the scion of a well-connected Wall Street family, was already emerging as an important behind-the-scenes player in Washington.

Despite his back-bench status in Congress and his relative youth – then 44 – Bush made Nixon’s short list for vice president before Nixon picked Spiro Agnew. Nixon then recruited Bush to be a leading surrogate for the 1968 campaign.

(In subsequent years, Bush would remain a Nixon favorite, getting financial support from a Nixon slush fund to run for the U.S. Senate in 1970 and, after losing, getting appointments as United Nations ambassador and as Republican National Committee chairman in 1973, when he spearheaded efforts to contain the Watergate scandal.)

But Bui Diem’s linking Bush to the Republican/Saigon collaboration in fall 1968 is provocative. Bush was later implicated in a similar scheme in 1980 when he was Ronald Reagan’s running mate and allegedly took part in secret Republican efforts to sabotage President Jimmy Carter’s talks with Iran to free 52 American hostages. [see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege or Consortiumnews.com’s “New October Surprise Series.”]

In fall 1968, Bui Diem said he was surprised that discovery of his covert contacts with Republicans angered the Johnson administration. In his memoir, he also claimed to be perplexed to receive an inquiry from the Christian Science Monitor, just before the election, about those contacts and his possible interference with peace talks.

Bui Biem said he rebuffed the Monitor’s questions, but then went back to examine his recent cables to Saigon. He noted that there were a couple of messages that might have understandably raised suspicions about his role in Republican efforts to disrupt Johnson’s peace initiative.

“I found a cable from October 23 … in which I had said, ‘Many Republican friends have contacted me and encouraged us to stand firm. They were alarmed by press reports to the effect that you [President Thieu] had already softened your position.’

“In another cable, from October 27, I wrote, ‘I am regularly in touch with the Nixon entourage,’ by which I meant Anna Chennault, John Mitchell, and Senator [John] Tower,” a Texas Republican and another Nixon favorite.

Bui Diem said those were the only two relevant cables, adding: “They certainly did not mean that I had arranged a deal with the Republicans. But putting the two together and looking at them in the context of the charged pre-election atmosphere, I saw that they constituted circumstantial evidence for anybody ready to assume the worst.”

He also conceded that Chennault “had other avenues to Thieu, primarily through his brother, Nguyen Van Kieu, a South Vietnamese ambassador to Taiwan.”

Thieu’s Version

President Thieu’s fullest account of the peace-talk gambit was recounted by his former aide, Nguyen Tien Hung, in The Palace File. Hung (with Jerrold Schecter) wrote, Thieu “believed that Richard Nixon owed him a political debt as a result of his refusal to support President Lyndon Johnson’s peace initiative just before the U.S. 1968 election.

“Although he never said so publicly, Thieu was certain that his refusal to take part in the peace talks with the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong when President Johnson halted the bombing of North Vietnam on October 31, 1968, just five days before the election, played a decisive role in Nixon’s victory.”

Hung said that after he became a special assistant to Thieu in 1973, they discussed these events over many hours. Thieu described his arrangement with the Republicans as one of mutual benefit, since he believed “a Humphrey victory would mean a coalition government in six months” but “with Nixon at least there was a chance.”

Hung/Schecter reported that “Anna Chennault visited Saigon frequently in 1968 to advise Thieu on Nixon’s candidacy and his views on Vietnam. She told him [Thieu] then that Nixon would be a stronger supporter of Vietnam than Humphrey.”

Thieu also bypassed his Washington embassy for some of his messages to Chennault, Hung/Schecter wrote. “He relied heavily on his brother Nguyen Van Kieu” and that “Mrs. Chennault often sent messages to Thieu through aides to his brother.”

Based on interviews with Chennault, Hung/Schecter reported that she claimed that John Mitchell called her “almost every day” urging her to stop Thieu from going to the Paris peace talks and warning her that she should use pay phones to avoid wiretaps.

Hung/Schecter wrote: “Mitchell’s message to her was always the same: ‘Don’t let him go.’ A few days before the election, Mitchell telephoned her with a message for President Thieu, ‘Anna, I’m speaking on behalf of Mr. Nixon. It’s very important that our Vietnamese friends understand our Republican position and I hope you have made that clear to them.’”

Chennault said, “Thieu was under heavy pressure from the Democrats. My job was to hold him back and prevent him from changing his mind.”

Nixon’s Trump Card

Nixon’s intelligence operation also benefited from inside information from Henry Kissinger, a foreign policy aide to banker David Rockefeller and an informal adviser to the Vietnam negotiations. But Kissinger wasn’t Nixon’s only source of news. Johnson himself apprised Nixon and the other leading candidates of the peace-talk progress.

But Nixon’s trump card may have been knowing that Johnson’s efforts to achieve a breakthrough before the Nov. 5 election could be countered by President Thieu’s intransigence, privately encouraged by the Republicans.

As Hung/Schecter wrote: “Throughout October 1968 Thieu tried to delay the Johnson bombing halt decision and an announcement of Paris Talks as long as possible to buy time for Nixon. … He knew that Johnson would proceed on his own, so he did not openly object to Johnson’s proposal but only to the specifics of its terms.”

For his part, Johnson became increasingly aware of the double game being played by Thieu and Nixon as the days counted down to the election. Johnson was hearing sketchy reports from U.S. intelligence that Thieu was dragging his feet in anticipation of a Nixon victory.

“Top Secret” reports from the National Security Agency informed President Johnson that Thieu was closely monitoring the political developments in the United States with an eye toward helping Nixon win the Nov. 5 election.

For instance, an Oct. 23, 1968, report – presumably based on NSA’s electronic eavesdropping – quotes Thieu as saying that the Johnson administration might halt the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam as part of a peace maneuver that would help Humphrey’s campaign but that South Vietnam might not go along. Thieu also appreciated the other side of the coin, that Johnson’s failure would help Nixon.

“The situation which would occur as the result of a bombing halt, without the agreement of the [south] Vietnamese government … would be to the advantage of candidate Nixon,” the NSA report on Thieu’s thinking read. “Accordingly, he [Thieu] said that the possibility of President Johnson enforcing a bombing halt without [south] Vietnam’s agreement appears to be weak.” [Click here and here.]

By Oct. 28, 1968, according to another NSA report, Thieu said “it appears that Mr. Nixon will be elected as the next president” and that any settlement with the Viet Cong should be put off until “the new president” was in place.

Wall Street Tip

The next day, Oct. 29, national security adviser Walt Rostow received the first clear indication that Nixon might actually be coordinating with Thieu to sabotage the peace talks. Rostow’s brother, Eugene, who was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, wrote a memo about a tip from a source in New York who had spoken with “a member of the banking community” who was “very close to Nixon.”

The source said Wall Street bankers – at a working lunch to assess likely market trends and to decide where to invest – had been given inside information about the prospects for Vietnam peace and were told that Nixon was obstructing that outcome.

“The conversation was in the context of a professional discussion about the future of the financial markets in the near term,” Eugene Rostow wrote. “The speaker said he thought the prospects for a bombing halt or a cease-fire were dim, because Nixon was playing the problem … to block. …

“They would incite Saigon to be difficult, and Hanoi to wait. Part of his strategy was an expectation that an offensive would break out soon, that we would have to spend a great deal more (and incur more casualties) – a fact which would adversely affect the stock market and the bond market. NVN [North Vietnamese] offensive action was a definite element in their thinking about the future.”

In other words, Nixon’s friends on Wall Street were placing their financial bets based on the inside dope that Johnson’s peace initiative was doomed to fail. (In another document, Walt Rostow identified his brother’s source as Alexander Sachs, who was then on the board of Lehman Brothers.)

A separate memo from Eugene Rostow said the speaker had added that Nixon “was trying to frustrate the President, by inciting Saigon to step up its demands, and by letting Hanoi know that when he [Nixon] took office ‘he could accept anything and blame it on his predecessor.’” So, according to the source, Nixon was trying to convince both the South and North Vietnamese that they would get a better deal if they stalled Johnson.

In a later memo to the file, Walt Rostow recounted that he learned this news shortly before attending a morning meeting at which President Johnson was informed by U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam Ellsworth Bunker about “Thieu’s sudden intransigence.” Walt Rostow said “the diplomatic information previously received plus the information from New York took on new and serious significance.”

That same day, Johnson ordered FBI wiretaps of Americans in touch with the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington and quickly learned that Anna Chennault was holding curious meetings with South Vietnamese Ambassador Bui Diem.

Working the Phones

Johnson began working the phones contacting some of his old Senate colleagues, including Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen, to urge that they intercede with Nixon to stop his campaign’s peace-talk sabotage.

“He better keep Mrs. Chennault and all this crowd tied up for a few days,” Johnson told Dirksen on Oct. 31, 1968, according to a tape recording of the call released in 2008. That night, Johnson announced a bombing halt intended to ensure North Vietnamese participation in the talks.

However, on Nov. 2, 1968, Johnson learned that his protests had not shut down the Nixon operation. The FBI intercepted the most incriminating evidence yet of Nixon’s interference when Anna Chennault contacted Ambassador Bui Diem to convey “a message from her boss (not further identified),” according to an FBI cable.

According to the intercept, Chennault said “her boss wanted her to give [the message] personally to the ambassador. She said the message was that the ambassador is to ‘hold on, we are going to win’ and that her boss also said, ‘hold on, he understands all of it.’ She repeated that this is the only message … ‘he said please tell your boss to hold on.’ She advised that her boss had just called from New Mexico.”

In quickly relaying the message to Johnson at his ranch in Texas, Rostow noted that the reference to New Mexico “may indicate [Republican vice presidential nominee Spiro] Agnew is acting,” since he had taken a campaign swing through the state.

That same day, Thieu recanted on his tentative agreement to meet with the Viet Cong in Paris, pushing the incipient peace talks toward failure. That night, at 9:18, an angry Johnson from his ranch in Texas telephoned Dirksen again, to provide more details about Nixon’s activities and to urge Dirksen to intervene more forcefully.

“The agent [Chennault] says she’s just talked to the boss in New Mexico and that he said that you must hold out, just hold on until after the election,” Johnson said. “We know what Thieu is saying to them out there. We’re pretty well informed at both ends.”

Johnson then renewed his thinly veiled threat to go public. “I don’t want to get this in the campaign,” Johnson said, adding: “They oughtn’t be doing this. This is treason.”

Dirksen responded, “I know.”

Johnson continued: “I think it would shock America if a principal candidate was playing with a source like this on a matter of this importance. I don’t want to do that [go public]. They ought to know that we know what they’re doing. I know who they’re talking to. I know what they’re saying.”

The President also stressed the stakes involved, noting that the movement toward negotiations in Paris had contributed to a lull in the violence. “We’ve had 24 hours of relative peace,” Johnson said. “If Nixon keeps the South Vietnamese away from the [peace] conference, well, that’s going to be his responsibility. Up to this point, that’s why they’re not there. I had them signed onboard until this happened.”

Dirksen: “I better get in touch with him, I think.”

“They’re contacting a foreign power in the middle of a war,” Johnson said. “It’s a damn bad mistake. And I don’t want to say so. … You just tell them that their people are messing around in this thing, and if they don’t want it on the front pages, they better quit it.”

A Worried Nixon

After hearing from Dirksen, Nixon grew concerned that Johnson might just go public with his evidence of the conspiracy. At 1:54 p.m. on Nov. 3, trying to head off that possibility, Nixon spoke directly to Johnson, according to an audiotape released in 2008 by the LBJ Library.

“I feel very, very strongly about this,” Nixon said. “Any rumblings around about somebody trying to sabotage the Saigon government’s attitude, there’s absolutely no credibility as far as I’m concerned.”

However, armed with the FBI reports and other intelligence, Johnson responded, “I’m very happy to hear that, Dick, because that is taking place. Here’s the history of it. I didn’t want to call you but I wanted you to know what happened.”

Johnson recounted some of the chronology leading up to Oct. 28 when it appeared that South Vietnam was onboard for the peace talks. He added: “Then the traffic goes out that Nixon will do better by you. Now that goes to Thieu. I didn’t say with your knowledge. I hope it wasn’t.”

“Huh, no,” Nixon responded. “My God, I would never do anything to encourage … Saigon not to come to the table. … Good God, we want them over to Paris, we got to get them to Paris or you can’t have a peace.”

Nixon also insisted that he would do whatever President Johnson and Secretary of State Dean Rusk wanted, including going to Paris himself if that would help. “I’m not trying to interfere with your conduct of it; I’ll only do what you and Rusk want me to do,” Nixon said, recognizing how tantalizingly close Johnson was to a peace deal.

“We’ve got to get this goddamn war off the plate,” Nixon continued. “The war apparently now is about where it could be brought to an end. The quicker the better. To hell with the political credit, believe me.”

Johnson, however, sounded less than convinced by Nixon’s denials. “You just see that your people don’t tell the South Vietnamese that they’re going to get a better deal out of the United States government than a conference,” the President said.

Still professing his innocence, Nixon told Johnson, “The main thing that we want to have is a good, strong personal understanding. After all, I trust you on this and I’ve told everybody that.”

“You just see that your people that are talking to these folks make clear your position,” Johnson said.

According to some reports, Nixon was gleeful after the conversation ended, believing he had tamped down Johnson’s suspicions. However, privately, Johnson didn’t believe Nixon’s protestations of innocence.

A Last Chance

On Nov. 4, the White House received another report from the FBI that Anna Chennault had visited the South Vietnamese embassy. Johnson also got word that the Christian Science Monitor was onto the story of Nixon undermining the peace talks.

Saville Davis of the Monitor’s Washington bureau approached Ambassador Bui Diem and the White House about a story filed by the Monitor’s Saigon correspondent, Beverly Deepe, regarding contacts between Thieu’s government and the Nixon campaign.

Deepe’s draft article began: “Purported political encouragement from the Richard Nixon camp was a significant factor in the last-minute decision of President Thieu’s refusal to send a delegation to the Paris peace talks – at least until the American Presidential election is over.”

The Monitor’s inquiry gave President Johnson one more chance to bring to light the Nixon campaign’s gambit before Election Day, albeit only on the day before and possibly not until the morning of the election when the Monitor could publish the story.

So, Johnson consulted with Rostow, Rusk and Defense Secretary Clark Clifford in a Nov. 4 conference call. The advisers were unanimous that Johnson shouldn’t go public, citing the risk that the scandal would reflect badly on the U.S. government.

“Some elements of the story are so shocking in their nature that I’m wondering whether it would be good for the country to disclose the story and then possibly have a certain individual [Nixon] elected,” Clifford said. “It could cast his whole administration under such doubt that I think it would be inimical to our country’s interests.”

Johnson concurred with the judgment, and an administration spokesman told Davis, “Obviously I’m not going to get into this kind of thing in any way, shape or form,” according to another “eyes only” cable that Rostow sent Johnson. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Almost Scoop on Nixon’s ‘Treason.’”]

The Consequences

The next day, Nixon narrowly prevailed over Humphrey by about 500,000 votes or less than one percent of the ballots cast.

On the day after the election, Rostow relayed to Johnson another FBI intercept which had recorded South Vietnamese Ambassador Bui Diem saying, prior to the American balloting, that he was “keeping his fingers crossed” in hopes of a Nixon victory......

I am just throwing the details displayed in this post out there with no comment yet. Is anyone else thinking what I am thinking?

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Manufactured Realities: The Truth About The Arab Spring by Bill Noxid

To understand the #iranElection operation is to understand the whole. As the manufactured “Arab Spring” has marched across the Middle East toppling governments in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya, and as operations continue in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, Myanmar, and many others, the original goal of the #IranElection prototype (destabilization and regime change) has manifest over and over with exponentially increasing destruction, death, and deception. The Occupy, Anarchy, and Anonymous subdivisions of this operation have caused untold destruction and divisions across Europe and the United States as this operation methodically turns governments against their people and people against their governments, just as they turn Sunni against Shia and Shia against Sunni across the Middle East. This global remote control puppetry continues to train myriad divisions of false flag terrorist groups responsible for unspeakable acts as the usual suspects are scapegoated without any validation whatsoever, as mainstream media remains little more than the propaganda wing of the operation – offering no critical analysis of the ongoing fraud.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Manufactured Realities: The Truth About The Arab Spring by Bill Noxid

To understand the #iranElection operation is to understand the whole. As the manufactured “Arab Spring” has marched across the Middle East toppling governments in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya, and as operations continue in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, Myanmar, and many others, the original goal of the #IranElection prototype (destabilization and regime change) has manifest over and over with exponentially increasing destruction, death, and deception. The Occupy, Anarchy, and Anonymous subdivisions of this operation have caused untold destruction and divisions across Europe and the United States as this operation methodically turns governments against their people and people against their governments, just as they turn Sunni against Shia and Shia against Sunni across the Middle East. This global remote control puppetry continues to train myriad divisions of false flag terrorist groups responsible for unspeakable acts as the usual suspects are scapegoated without any validation whatsoever, as mainstream media remains little more than the propaganda wing of the operation – offering no critical analysis of the ongoing fraud.

If the CIA manufactured the Arab Spring revolts that have led to the dismissal of three major tyrants the world did not need, then may Allah bless them, but what does this have to do with the CIA support of Gene McCarthy?

Up the rebels, death to tyrants.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Count me out on that one Bill. The CIA is the opposite of Democracy. No way they can spread it. When it comes to foreign intervention, track record, and motives matter. The CIA gets a 0 out of 100 on that scale.

You got me backwards on that one Nate. I don't say or believe that the CIA sparked or predicated or had anything to do with Arab Spring, and therefore those who say that they are supporting the dictators because they are against NATO are wrong - the Arab Spring is for real and not a CIA sparked invention, and if the Arab Spring is now supported by the CIA, that is no reason to support the dictators.

I don't check to see who the CIA is for or against before I make up my mind. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syira were ruled for decades by ruthless dictators who no one predicted could or would be overthrown by a popular democratic region wide revolutionary insurection - and your opinion of the CIA doesn't impact those facts in any way.

Up the rebels, death to tryants!

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Count me out on that one Bill. The CIA is the opposite of Democracy. No way they can spread it. When it comes to foreign intervention, track record, and motives matter. The CIA gets a 0 out of 100 on that scale.

You got me backwards on that one Nate. I don't say or believe that the CIA sparked or predicated or had anything to do with Arab Spring, and therefore those who say that they are supporting the dictators because they are against NATO are wrong - the Arab Spring is for real and not a CIA sparked invention, and if the Arab Spring is now supported by the CIA, that is no reason to support the dictators.

I don't check to see who the CIA is for or against before I make up my mind. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syira were ruled for decades by ruthless dictators who no one predicted could or would be overthrown by a popular democratic region wide revolutionary insurection - and your opinion of the CIA doesn't impact those facts in any way.

Up the rebels, death to tryants!

BK

Ruthless dictators usually supported by the CIA. In Egypt, you know that that was not minor support. And Obama sends Frank Wisner's son over there to restore "order"? I really don't get you Bill. You're willingness to condone vast imperial overreach by a completely unchecked CIA and your willingness to accept this absolute power absolutely unchecked IMO diminishes the significance of the JFK assassination and turns it into trivial pursuit. I have listened to your arguments in defense of the CIA for years and they simply fail to convince because compartmentalization is how that org works, so how can it constitute a defense?

The CIA has been largely unchecked since around 1953, and completely unchecked after November 22, 1963. No democracy can live through that. To pretend otherwise trivializes the assassination, even though I am certain that is not your intent. We do not have anything like real democracy here. It is processed conformity.

That said, I continue to enjoy reading your research and also to do my best to make it reach wider audiences.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Count me out on that one Bill. The CIA is the opposite of Democracy. No way they can spread it. When it comes to foreign intervention, track record, and motives matter. The CIA gets a 0 out of 100 on that scale.

You got me backwards on that one Nate. I don't say or believe that the CIA sparked or predicated or had anything to do with Arab Spring, and therefore those who say that they are supporting the dictators because they are against NATO are wrong - the Arab Spring is for real and not a CIA sparked invention, and if the Arab Spring is now supported by the CIA, that is no reason to support the dictators.

I don't check to see who the CIA is for or against before I make up my mind. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syira were ruled for decades by ruthless dictators who no one predicted could or would be overthrown by a popular democratic region wide revolutionary insurection - and your opinion of the CIA doesn't impact those facts in any way.

Up the rebels, death to tryants!

BK

Ruthless dictators usually supported by the CIA. In Egypt, you know that that was not minor support. And Obama sends Frank Wisner's son over there to restore "order"? I really don't get you Bill. You're willingness to condone vast imperial overreach by a completely unchecked CIA and your willingness to accept this absolute power absolutely unchecked IMO diminishes the significance of the JFK assassination and turns it into trivial pursuit. I have listened to your arguments in defense of the CIA for years and they simply fail to convince because compartmentalization is how that org works, so how can it constitute a defense?

The CIA has been largely unchecked since around 1953, and completely unchecked after November 22, 1963. No democracy can live through that. To pretend otherwise trivializes the assassination, even though I am certain that is not your intent. We do not have anything like real democracy here. It is processed conformity.

That said, I continue to enjoy reading your research and also to do my best to make it reach wider audiences.

Hey Nate, I'm not talking about the CIA. I think the CIA was asleep at the wheel by not only failing to predict the Arab Spring revolutions in the region that has so far led to the downfall of three despots, and more to come, I don't think they had anything to do with the regime changes, as they already had the dictators in their pockets. Why would the CIA or international bankers seek turmoil in a region they already had under control?

I don't check with the CIA to see what their policy is on certain dictators to know who the bad guys are, and the bad guys are the ones being overthrown.

If the you say the CIA supports their overthrow, I'd like to see some evidence of it before the revolt began.

You want to talk about the CIA and Arab Spring, let's talk about it, but don't be making things up.

Bill Kelly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to McCarthy and RFK, I think it is at the very least interesting that two CIA officials left the agency to take key positions in McCarthy's campaign.

McCarthy, like so many "leftists," didn't like the Kennedys. His reported reaction to RFK's assassination, where he criticized RFK's "demagouging" and basically blamed him for his own death, paved the way for later day inferences from the Secret Service and others that JFK was responsible for his own assassination. McCarthy and Kennedy were seemingly political allies. Thus, the enmity between them is odd. Maybe he resented RFK for being so "ruthless."

With so many powerful forces aligned against them, the Kennedys must have been doing something right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

......................

I am just throwing the details displayed in this post out there with no comment yet. Is anyone else thinking what I am thinking?

Don, no one replied, but you touched on details in my post. It seems a consideration that the Rockefellers wanted Hubert Humphrey to prevail over "Clean for Gene" but it sure is interesting that Gene McCarthy's very close friend Larry Merthan was married to William Harvey's secretary, Rita, and that Merthan had been in foreign service in Germany in '46, interrupted his law practice to "serve" again in Germany in '59, and that he was a fluent German speaker.

I am impressed that the Rockefellers achieved every goal in '68 except Nelson winning the nomination. Gene was elimnated, Bobby was assassinated, Hubert Humphrey won the nomination and lost the election, and Rockefeller man Clark Clifford sponsored Finney and counseled LBJ not to make a public display of Nixon backdealing to sabotage the Vietnam peace talks. Kissinger was installed to represent the Rockefellers, and Bush was already perceived as a "go to" guy.

The Ford presidency was the Rockefeller presidency, Carter was scuttled by David Rockefeller and McCloy forcing the Shah on Carter, and then there was the October surprise..... The recent links between the second Priscilla Johnson and her family and friends to the Rockefellers is fact. McCloy's son said his best friend was the chief enabler of Bernie Madoff, and McCloy's son was also best man in a wedding of a guy who married into the family of Standard Oil's Walter Teagle, and then married Rockefeller ex-wife (Mrs. Robert O. blake, Jr.) who just happened to be the daughter of husband and wife CIA agents, and Blake's father married Sylvia Whitehouse, and Andre Rheault was an usher in their wedding, along with a guy or two linked to the Mossadegh coup, and Rheault was a friend of Thomas Devine and Alexander Aldrich, and the brother of Special Forces Col. Robert Rheault.

I think both Robert O. Blake, Jr. and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse should resign from their high government posts, Enough is enough!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to McCarthy and RFK, I think it is at the very least interesting that two CIA officials left the agency to take key positions in McCarthy's campaign.

McCarthy, like so many "leftists," didn't like the Kennedys. His reported reaction to RFK's assassination, where he criticized RFK's "demagouging" and basically blamed him for his own death, paved the way for later day inferences from the Secret Service and others that JFK was responsible for his own assassination. McCarthy and Kennedy were seemingly political allies. Thus, the enmity between them is odd. Maybe he resented RFK for being so "ruthless."

With so many powerful forces aligned against them, the Kennedys must have been doing something right.

Thanks for getting this back on track. As a McCarthy for President coordinator of volunteers in 1968, at 17 I was not old enough to vote, yet was very active in the campaign and was in Chicago, on the national staff as part of the Special Projects Committee, as I think I explained earlier.

While surprised at the CIA support for McCarthy, which probably stems from their realization that the Vietnam war was a sham, I understood McCarthy's antimosity towards RFK, who only entered the race After McCarthy convinced him that LBJ could be defeated by his strong showing in New Hampshire. I also resented RFK entering the race and taking the steam out of McCarthy's cause. McCarthy, and his staff, also didn't appreciate the Kennedy's putting up a straw man candidate in George McGovern, who like Humphrey, was a politician and not a crusader. I also thought McCarthy had the ability to be president, and was pretty shocked to learn, while in Chicago, that McCarthy knew he had no chance to actually win the presidency. He did it on principal.

America just wasn't ready for a poet president.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

Bill, I would like your reaction to my new post in the Mike Wallace thread.

You brought Rita Chapowicki to my attention. Isn't it curious that McCarthy, in addition to having Clark Clifford's law partner and ex-cia agent come over to McCarthy, we also see the OSS - CIA husband of the other Priscilla Johnson (born in Stockholm, 1922) join the campaign, and that McCarthy was a lifelong friend of Rita's husband, Lawrence Merthan? I looked at Bill Colby, too, he is from Duluth, close to where McCarthy and Lawrence Casper Merthan were from.....

Edited by Tom Scully
Correct spelling of name, Merthan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to McCarthy and RFK, I think it is at the very least interesting that two CIA officials left the agency to take key positions in McCarthy's campaign.

McCarthy, like so many "leftists," didn't like the Kennedys. His reported reaction to RFK's assassination, where he criticized RFK's "demagouging" and basically blamed him for his own death, paved the way for later day inferences from the Secret Service and others that JFK was responsible for his own assassination. McCarthy and Kennedy were seemingly political allies. Thus, the enmity between them is odd. Maybe he resented RFK for being so "ruthless."

With so many powerful forces aligned against them, the Kennedys must have been doing something right.

Thanks for getting this back on track. As a McCarthy for President coordinator of volunteers in 1968, at 17 I was not old enough to vote, yet was very active in the campaign and was in Chicago, on the national staff as part of the Special Projects Committee, as I think I explained earlier.

While surprised at the CIA support for McCarthy, which probably stems from their realization that the Vietnam war was a sham, I understood McCarthy's antimosity towards RFK, who only entered the race After McCarthy convinced him that LBJ could be defeated by his strong showing in New Hampshire. I also resented RFK entering the race and taking the steam out of McCarthy's cause. McCarthy, and his staff, also didn't appreciate the Kennedy's putting up a straw man candidate in George McGovern, who like Humphrey, was a politician and not a crusader. I also thought McCarthy had the ability to be president, and was pretty shocked to learn, while in Chicago, that McCarthy knew he had no chance to actually win the presidency. He did it on principal.

America just wasn't ready for a poet president.

BK

McCarthy was a middle to upper middle class candidate. Only.

The parallels to Howard Dean are pretty clear.

Both, IMO, may very well have been fold-back operations, designed to contain and control anti-war elements of the party without ever really intending to win. RFK was a much much stronger candidate against Nixon, because his entire 1968 campaign was, in effect, the workable counterpunch to The Southern Strategy. Take for example, his challenging the middle and upper middle class college students opposition to the draft. Brilliant move. Long term that is exactly what was necessary to keep the anti-war movement moving forward, and to keep a neo New Deal alliance together that could also work on social issues. It blunted the white working class anger that the Southern Strategy was designed to exploit.

The 1968 RFK campaign is so censored because it is the solution to everything that Republicans have done since. RFK's counterpunching the Southern Strategy WAS WORKING and we cannot be permitted to see this. Otherwise the reification of the Media's Blue Dog BS would never work.

The 1968 California primary had the biggest income gap between Democratic candidates ever recorded in the 20th Century. The big wigs in the Dem hierarchy did not want to register THOSE PEOPLE!!

If you do not understand the 1968 RFK campaign you cannot understand today's Bendovercrats, and are in danger of voting.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

ANT-WAR MOVEMENT

Part 1

by Sherman H. Skolnick 3/17/04

http://www.skolnicksreport.org/awm1.html

Short preface 3/17/2004.

After this preface there is re-typed, VERBATIM, my original investigation report of 1972. Since there is currently supposed Anti-Iraq War Movements, it is instructive to study prior such movements. Why? To determine, by example, if the leadership and direction they are taking secretly serves the purposes of the Aristoc racy. To do what? To aid the ultra-rich wind-down, if not extricate themselves, from a disastrous, bloody war policy by which they may finally be exposed as ruling WITHOUT OUR CONSENT, contrary to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

As the Founder/Chairman of our investigation group, devoted to the public interest, I tried my best to alert the public to the fakers selected and installed by funding and orders of the American CIA, as the supposed "leaders" of the An ti-Viet Nam War activists, called by some, "The Peace Movement". They were clearly fake then. Are there such NOW?

View our website story, www.cloakanddgger.ca The Overthrow of the American Republic", Part 50, 3/16/2004, as to the efforts in the past to block us, threaten us falsely with arrest, and actually arrest me as the head of our group, for our efforts to confront CIA "peace movement" fakers, "The Chicago 7", Rennie Davis, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, and others.

After I beat state criminal charges of trespass, in confronting Rennie Davis during a live, not taped, television program, in 1972, to explain the specific CIA funding of him and his gang; I issued our report, 1972, on the suppose d "Peace Movement". I had beat the criminal charges by subpoenaing, as part of my defense, the CIA Station Chief in CHICAGO. By their charter, the CIA IS NOT SUPPOSED TO ENGAGE IN DOMESTIC OPERATIONS.

Afterwards, about 1973, in the presence of a tv reporter, I interviewed the CIA Station Chief in Chicago, outside his unmarked door in the Federal Building in Chicago.

Sherman H. Skolnick: "You are the CIA's Station Chief in Chicago, right?"

CIA Station Chief in Chicago: "Curious that you know that."

Skolnick: "Simple. The Wall Street Journal has your name on it, laying on this table in front of your receptionist's bullet-proof window, outside your unmarked door, here on the fifth floor of this Federal Building. I also noticed the red security bulb, mounted above your door, supposed to blink at the same time of triggering a silent alarm of the security patrol, if someone messes with your door. The bulb and such was installed by the CIA."

CIA Station Chief: "Well, we are limited to interviewing businessmen returning from the Soviet."

Skolnick: "I am handing you, in the presence of this tv reporter, a copy of our report about the 'Chicago 7', Rennie Davis, and the CIA, entitled 'Chicago 7' Are They For Real' ".original CIA Station Chief: "We have already examined a copy."

Skolnick: "Now is your chance to call me a xxxx or fault me. Is our report accurate?"

CIA Station Chief: "Yes, I do not challenge it."

What follows is a re-typing of our original 1972 report VERBATIM as then issued and circulated. Because of the length, it will be posted this way in parts.

"CHICAGO 7" Are They For Real?

by Sherman H. Skolnick, chairman, Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts

Throughout history, governments seeking to perpetuate injustice, yet being foresighted enought to channel and contain dissent against their corrupt, repressive policies, use groups of people called "The King's Men". Such people get mon ey, power, and benefits from "The King" but he denies knowing them since they pretend to oppose him. At the present when the terms "radical" and "revolutionary" are bandied around, it is important to know who some of the alleged "radical revolutionaries " are, and to consider that some of the "Chicago 7" are "The King's Men".

Historically, it should be noted that the overthrow of the Russian Czar and the Russian Church establishment were delayed some 15 years by the premature activities of anti-czarist groups too weak to accomplish their goal, and duped and led on by Czarist agents posing as "revolutionaries". The anti-czarists were thus fooled into eating green bananas. Analysis only of well-polished rhetoric alone cannot help unmask a faker. Hard facts, compiled and analyzed point more quickly to p ut-ups playing the role of revolutionaries. Applied here will be the reasonable criteria of money, power, and benefits.

The "Chicago 7" consists of Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, David Dellinger, Jerry Rubin, Lee Weiner, John Froines, and Abbie Hoffman. [Previously called the "Chicago 8", to include Bobby Seale, not believed part of the put-up.] Also called the "Conspiracy" or the "Conspiracy 7".

With little if any publicity, Rennie Davis and four others who later became part of the "7", nailed down the Anti-Riot Law as constitutional by a law suit brought by them in October, 1968, and ending up May, 1969, in the Chicago -based U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit.

[Nat'l Mobilization, Rennie Davis, et al., vs. Foran, No. 17274, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit. Clerk's office of which is 27th floor, Federal Building, 219 So. Dearborn, Chicago].

During the course of this almost secret suit, Rennie's side laid down and played dead in court. For example, according to court records, Rennie's side gave up a challenge to the part of the law dealing with police. Yet, in the street a nd on lecture platforms, Rennie is quick to mouth off "Off the Pigs!" Not so in court. The suit was brought and accepted as a class action, on behalf of all persons similarly situated who cross state lines and dissent against the government, thus bindin g upon potentially millions of people, none of whom were in court in the suit or even knew of the existence of the suit.

Known only to a handful, and unknown to the public, by the time the "Conspiracy" trial started, September, 1969, the Anti-Riot Law, thanks to Rennie, Tom Hayden, et al., had been made constitutional. During the summer of 1969, Rennie, et al., abandoned an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, actually there were two "trials". (1) The unpublicized test case of the Anti-Riot Law, Oct., 1968 through May, 1969, and (2) the much publicized "Conspiracy" trial, Sept., 1969, through Februa ry, 1970. The public thinks the Anti-Riot Law is being challenged in the "Conspiracy" case. Not so. Under American Jurisprudence, a test of the law cannot be made twice in the same judicial circuit under the same or similar circumstances. The earlier al most secret case is legally binding, unless there is a showing the ruling was procured by fraud or collusion. Knowledgeable researchers of law suits where collusion is suspected, call such rulings "tombstone" cases, or R.I.P. case! s (Rest in Peace).

When Skolnick confronted Rennie and the others of the "7" in the hallway during recesses in the "Conspiracy" trial, one by one the "7" sought to wash their hands of the almost secret prior suit. Jerry Rubin, one of history's most skilled actors [his uncle Sid was in vaudeville: Look Magazine, 10/7/69,' p.20], pretended he did not know what Skolnick was talking about. Dellinger said he never heard of the earlier case; yet, he was a party-plaintiff, according to the court records. Abbie Hoffman made obscene jokes about it. A spokesman for Rennie informed Skolnick that Rennie had nothing to do with the case. Hardly a word of this ever saw print or got on air, yet 5 of the "7" were plaintiffs in the almost secret earlier case.

For some 14 months, starting September, 1969, to November, 1970, there was, with a few isolated exceptions, an almost total news black-out by the Establishment Press, and even, wonder of wonders, by most of the so-called "underground" papers, who spend the bulk of their column space on drugs and pornography, with little anti-establishment news. [it should be noted that the Czars had their "underground", czarist-owned newspapers also, with many with names when translated are the same as names of some familiar "underground" papers. Presently, some 60% of the "underground" papers have been quietly bought out by the Kinney Corp., on whose board sit several C.I.A. people].

With considerable labor, time, and energy, from January, 1968 (before Convention Week) to date, staff membes of the Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts (called the Committee), as part of an on-going inquiry into court collusion, have unearthed mountains of factual data, tending to show the "7" case was a real conspiracy. The Committee believes, based on this data, that during the much-publicized "7" trial, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Jerry Rubin, and Abbie Hoffman, should have been more properly sitting at the Government prosecutor's table in the courtroom. Since the Committee does not have much, if any, inside information, we can never know for sure whether we are right. Only a confession or admission by any of the "7" could be more certain - such as the recent confessions of two West Coast agent-provocateur, Louis Tackwood and Eustacio Martinez, that they were posing as "radical revolutionaries".

1. Background and finances of the "Chicago 7". Unknown to the public, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, and the others who became the "7", and persons connected with them in the National Mobilization to End the War in Viet Nam, were funded by federal money, channelled to them through pass-through organizations connected with the government. $192,000 in federal money and $85,000 from the Carnegie Foundation, acting as a conduit for the Central Intelligence Agency, were funnelled to Hayden, Davis, et al., through a front calling itself the Chicago Student Health Organization. To maintain the deep "cover" of this latter group, stories were planted in the press describing the group as being "communist" inspired or directed.

Another $193,313 was funnelled to the "7" from the federal Office of Economic Opportunity by way of or through subsidiaries of the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C., an alleged "liberal" think tank posing as a left-wing group, but acting as a conduit for the C.I.A. Other substantial funds came from the Roger Baldwin Foundation which has, nationwide, taken over the structure of the American Civil Liberties Union. The A.C.L.U., such as it was prior to 1967, no longer exists. The Roger Baldwin Foundation is funded by several pass-throughs, or conduits, for the C.I.A., among others being:

J.M. Kaplan Fund, Inc. [of New York]; New World Foundation; Aaron E. Norman Fund, Inc.

This is shown by a detailed analysis of I.R.S. form 990-A, filed by these foundations [one of the few public record tax returns]. Several persons acting for the C.I.A. sit on the Board of Overseers of the Roger Baldwin Foundation : Jacob M. Kaplan and John L. Saltonstall, among others.

As to Jacob M. Kaplan, see: New York Times Index, "U.S. Intelligence Agency", 1967. Several members of the Saltonstall family are involved with the C.I.A.: Senator Leverett Saltonstall (R., Mass.), sits with a very small number of people on the Senate C.I.A. sub-committee. Senator Saltonstall received warm praise in a rare public speech by the director of the C.I.A. Another Saltonstall family member posed as a "radical revolutionary" during 1968 Democratic Convention Week, although in fact a counter-insurgent. Saltonstall's brother is a high-ranking C.I.A. official; see, "The Espionage Establishment" by David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, 1967, Random House, pp. 160-161; also pp. 148n; 171, 173, 173n.

To assist those who later became known as the "7", the Roger Baldwin Foundation in Chicago operated a Democratic Convention Week Project. In a suit now pending in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, the defense of one of the defendants is funded by the Roger Baldwin Foundation. That defendant refused to answer questions about the pass-through funds channelled from the C.I.A. to the Roger Baldwin Foundation. See: Skolnick vs. 113th Military Intelligence Group, et al., No. 71 C 91, U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. Ill., E.D. [Defendant John M. O'Brien, while purportedly a military intelligence spy, is believed to be a double-agent for the C.I.A.]

2. Tom Hayden is one of the more quiet members of the "7". He is a brilliant counter-insurgent posing as a "radical revolutionary", operating under the deep "cover" and installed by the Kennedys in the early 1960s. Hayden has one of the highest security clearances in the U.S. He risked blowing his deep "cover" when he sat with highest government officials on the Senator Robert F. Kennedy funeral train. (See: Logistics of the Funeral" by Anthony Howard, Esquire Magazine, Nov., 1968, p.120.)

Both Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis nailed down their deep "cover" by taking up residence in depressed areas, and proceeding to agitate the community. Started in Newark, New Jersey, in the summer of 1964, Hayden's activities resulted, in part, in the disorders a few years later in Newark. All the while, oddly enough, Hayden had almost absolute police immunity.

Hayden in the spring of 1972 has taken up residence in San Diego, in preparation for the G.O.P. convention there. While others find it hard to get teaching positions, or are run out of their jobs for their politics (such as Angela Davis), Hayden suddenly gets two teaching positions convenient to his San Diego activities: one at Immaculate Heart College, and the other, at University of California, at Los Angeles.

3. Rennard C. Davis, "Rennie" Davis. Rennie's image as a "radical revolutionary" was firmly planted by his publicist and strategist, Don Rose, of 1340 East Madison Park, in Chicago's Hyde Park area. Not too long ago, Rose was an executive of the ultra-right wing, quasi-government organization, Public Administration Service, 1313 East 60th St., Chicago. P A S is connected with, and does work for, the U.S. War Department, Mutual Security Agency, and a C.I.A. subsidiary, the Agency for International Development. Among other things, P A S does work in putting together police training information. The funding for Don Rose's work comes, in part, from the C.I.A. pass-through, the Taconic Foundation of New York. Rose is al so the publicist for an umbrella group of so-called Civil Rights organizations, called the National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice, NCCIJ, 1307 So. Wabash, Chicago. The recent head of that group, and the previous head! , were directly connected with, or officers or directors of urban-affairs type foundations and groups funded by the C.I.A. (See: Ramparts Magazine, June, 1969, p.17; Chicago Defender, 9/10/70, front page.)

One of the government functions of NCCIJ is to act as an early warning system regarding the black community and any bad reactions to injustices. NCCIJ compiles information on various civil rights groups and feeds that data to various federal agencies that need to be informed of possible rebellion in the black community. The Roger Baldwin Foundation's Ghetto Project in Chicago fulfils a similar purpose.

This is end of Part One of this report, as originally made and circulated in 1972. The items in parentheses and brackets are in the original. To be continued.

3/17/2004. A few notes as updates.

In the Chicago U.S. District Court, in my anti-spying case against the 113th Military Intelligence Group, I had a winning verdict. At the time countering cases like mine in the Justice Department was William Rehnquist. Soon after my winning verdict, Rehnquist was then appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court where he heard and ruled on a case like mine, destroying my winning verdict. REHNQUIST IS AN UNETHICAL SCOUNDREL. HE DID NOT DISQUALIFY HIMSELF DESPITE HIS PRIOR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ROLE AS TO SUCH ANTI-SPY CASES LIKE MINE.

Prior to becoming First Lady in the Clinton Administration, Hillary Rodham Clinton was a Director of the CIA-funded New World Foundation. Hillary and Bill are a marriage of convenience, two incompatible sorts hooked together, as a follow up of their separate roles with the American C.I.A.

The Nation Magazine gets part of their funding from the mentioned CIA Foundations, like the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York. Once in a while the magazine will run a heavily censored, watered down story, harmless in the extreme, about a purported overseas C.I.A. operation. They never seem to want to mention, however, dirty, bloody DOMESTIC U.S. operations of C.I.A. which do occur in violation of the spy agency's charter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

Ramparts was also a CIA Front

By Miles Mathis

http://mileswmathis.com/ramp.pdf

So I guess the question is, why would the CIA blow its own cover? Why would one CIA front—Ramparts—squeal on another CIA front—Encounter? We get the answer in Saunders' book, near the end. Tom Braden, the head of the IOD who ran the whole arts operation for the CIA after 1950, blew what was left of the cover in May 1967 in an article in the Saturday Evening Post called “I'm Glad the CIA is Immoral.” That's right: you didn't read that wrong. Not immortal. Immoral. Lacking morals. Synonyms: psychotic, evil, vice-laden, vicious, dishonest, shameless, decadent, postmodern. The CIA wrote an article with that title, the Saturday Evening Post printed it (the Saturday Evening Post, not Hustler), and no one blinked an eye. We aren't told whether Norman Rockwell did the illustrations for that piece. That was just a month after the Ramparts exposé. But the CIA had known about Ramparts intention to break this story since early 1966, a full year earlier [saunders, p. 381]. The CIA tells us it did everything it could to sink the story, but was unsuccessful. Right. The CIA was not able to prevent a small magazine from publishing material that went against national security, and then was not able to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post—which they also owned—from the “orgy of disclosures” that followed? They weren't able to stop their own man Braden from publishing in the Saturday Evening Post? That's about as believable as their story about not being able to invade Cuba.
When asked, Braden said he “forgot” about his secrecy agreement. Right. Braden also apparently didn't care about scooping Ramparts. He had a lead of three months to work on his article, and could have easily scooped Ramparts by publishing in March instead of May. That is just one more indication that the CIA controlled Ramparts. It wasn't Ramparts the CIA was trying to scoop or spin, it was Conor Cruise O'Brien and the international contingency of the 1966 PEN conference. The Irishman O'Brien and others—especially the French—were tired of seeing International PEN (Poets, Essayists, and Novelists) infiltrated by the CIA. They are the ones who began leaking information in 1965. By 1967, the CIA could see that their cover was already blown, so the best they could do is take control of the leak. That way, they could at least spin it. That is what the “orgy of disclosures” in 1967 was about. Like the orgy of disclosures in Saunders' book in 1999, it was the effort to minimize and direct. Smaller fish could be thrown to the sharks, a few minor crimes could be admitted, but all the big stuff would remain buried.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...