Operation Mockingbird

[Gerry Hemming]

Did anybody else notice Gen. Victor "Brute" Krulak in the Penthouse story on Coply?

He was Fletcher Prouty's commander, who later confirmed Prouty's identificaiton of Gen. Ed Lansdale walking in the background of the tramps at Dealey Plaza.

Bill,

It's worth noting that in his ARRB interview, when asked if he would identify the "acquaintance" who corroborated that it's Landale in the photo, Prouty said, "No. No, that's a personal matter." Why would Prouty say that when his identification of this person as Krulak was a matter of public record?

Also, Gerry Hemming, who apparently knows Krulak and tells of a recent fall that he suffered, has stated on the forum that Krulak "denies ever even hinting at said statement." Gerry may wish to clarify whether he heard this denial from the horse's mouth.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4588

IMO (thanks to James Richards first pointing out the resemblance) the man in the photo looks more like Maxwell Taylor (the hair, plus a drooping shoulder just like Lansdale's) than Lansdale (again, the hair).

John Newman said he was working on Lansdale, and discovered Lansdale was in Ft. Worth on 11/21/63, possibly staying in the same hotel as JFK.

Certainly a significant find. Do you have details as to how Newman discovered this, etc.? Stone's people were able to trace Lansdale through a "claim check" to the Hotel Texas where JFK stayed, but didn't have the date he was there. The ARRB considered looking into Lansdale's travel records on this question, but unfortunately decided that the records "are not worth our checking out."

Ron

---------------------------

I met with Greg Burnham in San Diego [at my daughter's house] about 5 years ago, and we discussed how close he was to Prouty. [Greg was at Arlington for the burial] Some time after that, I received a copy of the letter from Krulak to Prouty RE: Lansdale passing the tramps pic, and I sent that off to a retired General who is a member of my Marine Association -- who then forwarded it to his son Charlie Krulak, who had been a Commandant of the Marine Corps during the 1990s.

Charlie sent it back, and said that upon reconsideration, his dad had been mistaken and hoped that none of Lansdale's friends or family had been offended. Neither "Brute" Krulak nor Charlie had seen "JFK", and when "E-Ring types" pointed out the scene where Lansdale's desk name-plate is partially obscured by a potted plant during a pan -- and while the character is allegedly given the assassination order -- a bunch of folks were highly annoyed that Krulak had been suckered into re-affirming murder allegations against Lansdale.

Greg sent me another copy of the Krulak letter earlier this year. NOT really "Cricket" old man !!

I told the General to welcome everybody to the club, especially our members who served with LHO in MACS-9 & MACS-1; and are still alive and breathing.

Later,

GPH

________________________________

[Owen Parsons]

Gerry, this is certainly a far cry from denying "ever hinting at said statement." Your story appears to be mutating.

[Ron Ecker]

Owen,

Thanks for the link to the Krulak letter. I either hadn’t seen it before or had forgotten about it. There are a couple of strange things about its discussion of the photos. First, he says the two policemen carrying shotguns had “different” caps, “one a white chinstrap, one black.” What is he talking about? The two cops carrying shotguns were Bass and Wise, both with regular caps with no chinstraps at all. He says “One has a Dallas police shoulder patch, one does not.” In the only photo with a view of Wise’s patch, it is barely discernible in shadow, but IMO it’s there. In any case, I don’t think there is any question that Marvin Wise was a DPD cop, so why would he show up with no shoulder patch that day, everything else being normal including his cap?

Second, there is the Lansdale figure. Krulak says, “The haircut, the stoop, the twisted left hand, the large class ring. It’s Lansdale.” IMO he is describing Maxwell Taylor, who had that haircut, that stoop, that large class ring (I don’t know about a “twisted left hand”). When did Lansdale ever have such a wavy haircut? I have seen such hair in no Lansdale photo.

Also consider that Prouty and Krulak knew both men, Taylor and Lansdale. How could they possibly fail to see the resemblance of the man in the photo to Taylor, and simply carry on about “It’s Lansdale”? The only thing I can think of is there was a limited hang-out going on here, in which Lansdale is identified to distract people from noticing the resemblance to Taylor. “It’s Lansdale!” Say it loudly enough and folks might assume that it’s true.

BTW if you don't consider Hemming's information to be "valid," I wouldn't say that Prouty has "a much better record." Read Prouty's disastrous ARRB interview sometime. (It's on Larry Hancock's CD "Keys to the Conspiracy.")

Ron

Edited November 7, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Gerry Hemming]

Gerry, this is certainly a far cry from denying "ever hinting at said statement." Your story appears to be mutating.

------------------------------

As an aside, Gen. V. "Brute" Krulak took a fall off a ladder last week at his home near San Diego, but is recovering nicely. As to his identifying Lansdale as the "suit" passing by the "tramps"......

[Correctly stated: Gen. Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret.) stated to a former Pentagon "E-Ring" colleague that -- his father, LGEN Victor H. Krulak told him that he never intended to INSINUATE that Lansdale's "possible" presence near the tramps was any HINT that he believed that Lansdale was culpable in JFK's assassination. Moreover, as Prouty's former superior, and having been close to JFK since 1961, that he trusted Prouty was making a "PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL" inquiry into a brother General's [Lansdale] having been assigned some "covert task" in Dallas that day. I am NOT surprised that famous Marines aren't thrilled at finding their colleague's names involved in a "Kevin Bacon/connect-the-dots-theory-of-murders", especially when considering that a Marine was "convicted" by the WC of two murders without even an indictment nor arraignment !! In fact, they don't give a damn about some amatuer attempts at clearing Oswald's name, especially when it appears to be some kind of weirdo "Parlor Game"]

........Krulak denies ever even hinting at said statement, and moreover indicated that if you might notice, that individual is ducking his LEFT arm to his rear !! Lansdale's right arm was the drooping disabled one, not his left arm !! When Dale Dye came out from the wardrobe crew in a nice suit [filming "JFK"] we all razzed the hell out of him, because his normal attire was "grunge". Due to our operating without a working script a day in advance, I didn't discover what that scene represented until I saw the movie months later. Had I know, I would have warned Oliver against shooting that scenario, as I did on many occasions -- resulting in more than a few shouting matches.

[Ron Ecker]

Gen. Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret.) stated to a former Pentagon "E-Ring" colleague that -- his father, LGEN Victor H. Krulak told him that he never intended to INSINUATE that Lansdale's "possible" presence near the tramps was any HINT that he believed that Lansdale was culpable in JFK's assassination. Moreover, as Prouty's former superior, and having been close to JFK since 1961, that he trusted Prouty was making a "PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL" inquiry into a brother General's [Lansdale] having been assigned some "covert task" in Dallas that day.

Well this is getting interesting. So Lansdale was apparently in Dealey Plaza that day on some "covert task" unrelated to the assassination. I would have to characterize this as perhaps the mother of all coincidences in the morass of coincidences that comprises the (non-conspiratorial) story of 11/22/63.

Krulak denies ever even hinting at said statement, and moreover indicated that if you might notice, that individual is ducking his LEFT arm to his rear !! Lansdale's right arm was the drooping disabled one, not his left arm !!

The man may be ducking his left arm to get past the tramps, but IMO his RIGHT shoulder has a droop, just like Lansdale's and Taylor's.

Ron

Edited November 7, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Shanet Clark]

As you know I am a Prouty man.

So I tend to think Lansdale was part of an ONI/MI job on John Kennedy.

I am familiar with Krulak and if he backs Prouty on Lansdale in the triple tramp photos,

then well there you go.

[John Simkin]

I have just received this email from Stewart Alsop. I will be answering it later:

Apparently you are the author of this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOCKINGBIRD. You might be interested to know that there is identical language in a column written by Alexander Cockburn in The Nation magazine recently. http://freepress.org/columns/display/2/2005/1269.

It is interesting to me that he doesn't give you or Wikipedia credit for his statement, "One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times)." While you say that your entry does not violate copyrights and I know that Wikipedia is published under Creative Commons, I still think it is usually respectful to cite sources than to borrow them wholesale, which I was taught to categorize as plagiarism.

I am interested to know how you conclude that my uncle, Joseph Alsop, was "under the control of the CIA", or that my father, Stewart Alsop, was willing to "promote the views of the CIA". You might want to do more than cite other sources when making disparaging remarks about people who have been dead for more than 30 years and who had pretty significant reputations for both intellectual and moral honesty. Perhaps you might even want to imagine being their son and seeing these kind of accusations made about your father and uncle when they are no longer around to defend themselves. Indeed, you might even want to do some research and read what they actually wrote rather than depending on third and fourth-hand sources.

Stewart Alsop

[Tim Gratz]

I intend to contact Alsop and ask him how he can consider the allegation that a journalist was willing to "promote the views of the CIA" as disparaging. In many cases, the views of the CIA were simply pro-Western or pro-American.

[John Simkin]

Yesterday I received this email from Stewart Alsop.

Apparently you are the author of this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOCKINGBIRD. You might be interested to know that there is identical language in a column written by Alexander Cockburn in The Nation magazine recently. http://freepress.org/columns/display/2/2005/1269.

It is interesting to me that he doesn't give you or Wikipedia credit for his statement, "One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times)." While you say that your entry does not violate copyrights and I know that Wikipedia is published under Creative Commons, I still think it is usually respectful to cite sources than to borrow them wholesale, which I was taught to categorize as plagiarism.

I am interested to know how you conclude that my uncle, Joseph Alsop, was "under the control of the CIA", or that my father, Stewart Alsop, was willing to "promote the views of the CIA". You might want to do more than cite other sources when making disparaging remarks about people who have been dead for more than 30 years and who had pretty significant reputations for both intellectual and moral honesty. Perhaps you might even want to imagine being their son and seeing these kind of accusations made about your father and uncle when they are no longer around to defend themselves. Indeed, you might even want to do some research and read what they actually wrote rather than depending on third and fourth-hand sources.

Stewart Alsop

My reply to Stewart Alsop:

As I point out in my Mockingbird article for Wikipedia (note 6) this quotation comes from Deborah Davis’ book, Katharine the Great, 1979 (page 226). It is possible that Alexander Cockburn did get his information from my Wikipedia article or the Operation Mockingbird page on my website:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

However, Cockburn acknowledges that he got the information from Carl Bernstein’s Rolling Stone article (20th October, 1977). This was indeed the breakthrough article and definitely inspired the passage that appeared in Katharine the Great. For example, the article includes the following passage:

“In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA. Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services - from simple intelligence¬ gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements America’s leading news organizations.”

I am not sure if you are accusing Alexander Cockburn or me of plagiarism. However, it is clear you do not understand the meaning of the word. The passage you refer to in the Wikipedia entry is in quotation marks. It also provides a note that explains it is taken from the book Katharine the Great. The passage in Cockburn does not include quotation marks but he makes it clear that he is relying on Carl Bernstein’s article that appeared in Rolling Stone.

You are clearly upset by the fact that Cockburn and myself have pointed out that the writings of your father and uncle came under the influence of the CIA. I think you should take this matter up with the person who made the original accusation. Carl Bernstein is still alive and I am sure he would be willing to defend what he wrote in 1977.

If you are interested in this issue you should read what is commonly called the Frank Church report (Foreign and Military Intelligence: Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) that was published on 14th April, 1976. See section X, pages 191-200, on the CIA and the media (the report is cited in my article). The report does not actually name the journalists concerned but I suspect Bernstein got his information from members of this committee.

My fear is that Stewart Alsop is trying to persuade Wikipedia to take my entry for Operation Mockingbird from the website (he must have contacted Wikipedia to have got my name). Considering that at first they kept on deleting my article, I don't suppose it will remain for much longer.

[John Simkin]

Stewart Alsop's reply to my email:

None of what you cite demonstrates "control". Nor does it demonstrate "promoting the views of". These are editorial, judgemental words not justified by the sources you cite.

I'm well aware of and indeed proud of the association that my father and my uncle had with the CIA and additionally proud that they could serve their country and still provide thoughtful, independent, accurate, well-informed analysis of world and US politics while still acting in the interests of their own country.

Perhaps you should read the biographies of my uncle, in particular, about how he dealt with his encounter with the KGB while in Moscow.

This is the same issue for journalists as the question of whether it's their job to merely observe and document someone who has been in an auto accident or actually help. I tend to believe that journalists are human beings, not exempt from participating in the human experience. Your Wikipedia article takes a side and then documents that point of view as fact.

[Pat Speer]

John, I'm actually on Stewart's side on this one. While it's tempting to conclude that the journalists who helped out the CIA on occasion were under its control, I don't believe this to be the truth. To people as powerful as the Luces, the Grahams, the Alsops, Arthur Krock, Ben Bradlee, Bob Woodward, etc., their contact with the CIA was similar to Drew Pearson's contact with Johnson. To their minds, THEY were the ones gaining access and control over the CIA through the contact. Ultimately, there is just as much reason to believe Bradlee "controlled" Wisner as Wisner "controlled" Bradlee. I say this because Washington is a bureaucracy. Outside of Angleton, very few men in the CIA stuck around long enough to have the political power of the long-time columnists, and the long-time Senators, and Angleton was a hermit, a shadow. The only man who had the politcal clout to control the top journalists was Hoover, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if many of them had discovered ways of controlling him as well (such as writing stories about his homosexuality, and then never publishing them).

I think your writings on such matters would be easier for men like Stew 2 to take if you changed the word "control" into "develop a relationship with" or something equally nebulous. It is also probably closer to the truth.

[William Kelly]

John, I'm actually on Stewart's side on this one. While it's tempting to conclude that the journalists who helped out the CIA on occasion were under its control, I don't believe this to be the truth. To people as powerful as the Luces, the Grahams, the Alsops, Arthur Krock, Ben Bradlee, Bob Woodward, etc., their contact with the CIA was similar to Drew Pearson's contact with Johnson. To their minds, THEY were the ones gaining access and control over the CIA through the contact. Ultimately, there is just as much reason to believe Bradlee "controlled" Wisner as Wisner "controlled" Bradlee. I say this because Washington is a bureaucracy. Outside of Angleton, very few men in the CIA stuck around long enough to have the political power of the long-time columnists, and the long-time Senators, and Angleton was a hermit, a shadow. The only man who had the politcal clout to control the top journalists was Hoover, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if many of them had discovered ways of controlling him as well (such as writing stories about his homosexuality, and then never publishing them).

I think your writings on such matters would be easier for men like Stew 2 to take if you changed the word "control" into "develop a relationship with" or something equally nebulous. It is also probably closer to the truth.

I'm with Pat on this one. There must be a better word than 'control' like there's a better word for 'lie,' especially when its a two way street and the so called lie isn't intentional.

The Alsops are as much an American icon family as the Kennedys, and have earned the privildge and benefit of the doubt. Joe Alsop not onlly sat down socially with JFK, he got JFK to conceive of a coup d'etat in America if there was a Bay of Pigs, a situation similar to the Bay of Pigs (ie. Cuban Missile Crisis), and a third incident, then JFK said there could possibly be a coup in the US. [CAN SOMEBODY SITE THIS FOR ME?- THANKS -]

Also look at the first people LBJ calls after the assassination - Joe Alsop is one of the first reporters he calls, and gets assurances of alligance. I think that if JFK had durvived the hit, one of the first journalists he would talk to would be Joe Alsop, who played all sides of the fence, though was on the take as far as working for the CIA went.

BK

[John Simkin]

Operation Mockingbird seems to be alive and well in Bush's America:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1666708,00.html

Britons named in US 'good news' furore

· Iraqi newspapers paid to run pro-American articles

· Ex-military intelligence man central to covert plan

David Pallister

Wednesday December 14, 2005

The Guardian

A former British military intelligence officer and an expert in psychological warfare has emerged as a crucial strategist in the Pentagon's covert operation to pay Iraqi newspapers and journalists for publishing "good news" stories about the coalition's reconstruction efforts.

Andrew Garfield, whose work in the Intelligence Corps from 1979 to 1990 included postings in Northern Ireland, has the title of senior director of insight and influence at the Washington-based Lincoln Group. The company is only two years old and run by a 30-year-old Oxford graduate with no experience of military public relations, yet it received an "indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity" contract worth up to $100m (£56m).

It was awarded by the Pentagon's joint psychological operations support element in Tampa, Florida, apparently without the White House's knowledge. An investigation into the project, in which about 1,000 articles were placed in Iraqi newspapers, was launched after revelations in last month's Los Angeles Times. George Bush said he was "very troubled" by the claims.

Mr Garfield told the Guardian he was contractually unable to comment on the company's work for the Pentagon. But in an exchange of emails with the Guardian, he said: "I have long been an advocate of the use of hearts and minds campaigns ... in support of counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations. In part my advocacy for this vital activity has been informed by my ... experience of the conflict in Northern Ireland ... I am currently offering my experience and expertise, such as it is, to Lincoln Group."

Mr Garfield, in his mid-40s, has been an articulate commentator on the need for the US to develop a more sophisticated counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq.

A Lincoln spokeswoman said: "Lincoln Group has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq. Our clients, our employees and the Iraqis who support this effort have maintained a commitment to battle terror with a powerful weapon - the truth."

US military officials in Iraq have admitted offering articles for publication to Iraqi newspapers, saying that "in some cases articles have been accepted and published as a function of buying advertising and opinion/editorial space". Referring to the Lincoln Group it went on: "Third parties have been employed in an effort to mitigate the risk to publishers."

In one example, al-Mutamar newspaper, run by associates of the deputy prime minister, Ahmad Chalabi, ran a paid story entitled, "Iraqis insist on living despite terrorism". The independent Addustour paper carried a piece in August with the headline, "More money goes to Iraq's development". Records obtained by the Times show this was placed with a payment of $1,500.

Critics of the programme are concerned about the one-sided nature of the planted stories and the fact that their US military authors are disguised. Senator John Warner of Virginia, who heads the Senate armed services committee, said he remained "gravely concerned" after receiving a briefing at the Pentagon.

Questions have also been asked about how such a lucrative contract was landed by Lincoln's senior executive, Christian Bailey, who left Oxford University in 1995 with a degree in economics and management. Mr Bailey told the Sunday Times: "We have handled ourselves very appropriately. The confidence and trust of our clients is much more important to us than the temporary press flap."

[Pat Speer]

John, the CIA has always been allowed to plant stories overseas. In the Pike Report, (or is it the Church Report?), they get into the issue of planting stories overseas that end up in U.S. papers, particularly stories from Reuters, as I remember. And the CIA says "oh well, what can we do...we have no control over where the stories go once we plant them!" And that was the end of that. My understanding of "Mockingbird" is that it related to stories intended for domestic distribution. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I don't mind the term "control". You have to ask would these journalists have attained their high position had they defied the interests of the agency. The CIA was both an actor and a source of information on many of these events. I dont see how it is possible for a journalist to see themselves as 'controling' the CIA in such a situation.

Can you think of a journalist that ever rose to a high stature while defying the CIA? Maybe Seymour Hersh, but he had his uses in weakening Nixon. Anyway the years 1973-75 are certainly an aberation from the U.S. press' traditional role of docile subservience to the agency.