Joseph Trento

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.

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.

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.

"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.

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an investigative journalist and historian?

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.

(2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

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.

(3) How do you decide about what to write about?

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.

(4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence?

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.

(5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone?

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.

(6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the "committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy".

However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh's Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

"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.

(7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call "secret history"? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

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.

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an investigative journalist and historian?

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.

(2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

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.

(3) How do you decide about what to write about?

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.

(4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence?

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.

(5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone?

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.

(6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the "committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy".

However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh's Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

"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.

(7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call "secret history"? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

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.

I have been doing some more research on John McCone. It is an interesting story:

On another thread I have argued that Tommy Corcoran was a key figure in developing what became known as the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799

It is well documented that one of Corcoran’s most important clients was Henry J. Kaiser. It is less well-known that Kaiser was a business partner of John A. McCone and Steve Bechtel.

Kaiser began his business relationship with the Bechtel family when he became a partner of Warren Bechtel in 1921. Together they won the contract to build the Boulder Dam (later known as the Hoover Dam). Also involved in this project was John A. McCone. At the time he worked as sales manager for Consolidated Steel. He arranged with Kaiser and Bechtel to provide 55 million tons of steel for the Hoover Dam. The sale saved Consolidated Steel from bankruptcy. McCone got the contract because he was a close friend of Warren Bechtel’s son, Steve Bechtel (they met while students at Berkeley studying engineering).

After Warren Bechtel’s death in 1933, Henry J. Kaiser joined forces with Steve Bechtel. In 1937, McCone joined the team. As a result the Bechtel-McCone Corporation was formed. (1) Over the next few years the three men formed several companies with them taking it in turn to become the front man. In some cases, they remained silent partners. This was especially true after the war when McCone sought a career in politics and was responsible for giving government contracts to Kaiser and Bechtel.

The first major customer of Bechtel-McCone was Standard Oil of California (Socal). The company obtained a contract to build Socal’s new refinery in Richmond. It was the first of many refineries built by Bechtel-McCone. By 1939 the company had more than 10,000 employees and was building refineries, chemical plants and pipelines all over the world. (2)

It was Kaiser’s connections with Tommy Corcoran that was to be the most important factor in the growth of this business empire. In the summer of 1940 Steve Bechtel and John McCone had a meeting with Admiral L. Vickery of the U.S. Maritime Commission. Vickery told the men he “had received a telegram from the British Purchasing Commission (BPC) urgently requesting that the Maritime Commission arrange the building of 60 tankers to replace the ships the British had lost to German torpedoes”. At another meeting a few weeks later, Maritime Commission chairman, Admiral Emory S. Land, told Bechtel and McCone that: “Besides building ships for the British, they would have to build them for the Americans as well. Not merely tankers, but Liberty and Victory cargo ships, troop transports, the whole makings of a merchant navy.” Admiral Land confidently added that thousands of vessels would be needed as “America was headed into war.” (3)

As a result of these two meetings, Bechtel, McCone and Kaiser built shipyards at Richmond and Sausalito. Several of their companies were involved in this project that became known as “Operation Calship”. It was a terrible gamble because at that time they were relying on the predictions of Admiral Emory S. Land.

However, Land was right and only a month after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Maritime Commission awarded Calship its first shipbuilding contract. Within a year, Calship was employing over 42,000 workers at its two shipyards.

In 1942 John McCone and Steve Bechtel obtained a contract to build aircraft at Willow Run in Alabama. The War Department agreed to pay all the company’s costs plus 5 percent on work estimates presented by Bechtel-McCone every six months.

A 300-acre factory was built and 8,000 employees hired to staff it. However, no aircraft were built. Employees were paid for doing nothing. A local man, George P. Alexander, discovered details of this scam and collected affidavits from workers who admitted that they “went in every day at 9.00, punched the time clock, then went home”. They then returned to the factory at 5.00 to “punch out”.

Alexander filed suit against Bechtel-McCone in federal district court on 31st July, 1943. He claimed that the company had made “many and various claims against the government of the United States, or a department or officer thereof, knowing such claims to be false, fictitious or fraudulent.” (4)

However, the judge dismissed the case. The problem was with the contract, not the claims by Bechtel-McCone. As John McCone admitted to Fortune Magazine on 17th May, 1943: “Every six months, we estimate how much work we expect to do in the next six months and then we get a fee of five percent of the estimated amount of work regardless of how much work we actually do turn out.” (5)

Bechtel-McCone was also involved in another scandal concerning war contracts. Lieutenant General Brehon Somervell, head of the Army Sources of Supply Command, decided to build “a major refinery at the Norman Wells oilfields in Canada’s Northwest Territories, and run a pipeline from there 1,200 miles southwest through the Yukon Territory into Alaska.”

The contract to do this was given to John McCone and Steve Bechtel. The terms of the contract were very unusual. The Bechtel-McCone Corporation was guaranteed a 10% profit on the project (the kind of deal that George Bush gave to Halliburton in Iraq). The other surprising thing about the Canol Project was that it was to be a secret contract. It seems that Somervell did not want anyone outside the War Department and the Bechtel-McCone Corporation to know about this deal. The reason for this is that Harold Ickes, as Interior Secretary and the head of the Petroleum Administration for War, should have been the person who oversaw this project.

The $35 million for the project came from within a massive war appropriations bill that was passed by Congress in April 1942. After working on it for a year the cost had reached over $100 million. It was finished in May 1945. However, the wrong sized pipes had been used and it was discovered that to pump the oil it cost $150 per barrel rather than the $5 estimated by Somervell, Bechtel and McCone. Less that a year after it was finished, the plant and pipeline was abandoned. It had cost the American taxpayer $134 million. (6)

After the war the “General Accounting Office told a House Merchant Marine Committee investigation that the company had made $44,000,000 on an investment of $100,000. The same committee a few months later complained that Mr McCone's company was “paid $2,500,000 by the government to take over a shipyard costing $25,000,000 and containing surplus material costing $14,000,000.” (7)

Tommy Corcoran was not the only person arranging for Kaiser, Berchtel and McCone to obtain lucrative government contracts during the war. John L. Simpson was a close friend of an interesting group of people including Allen and John Foster Dulles, Dean Acheson and William Donovan. In 1942 Simpson was recruited into the OSS by Allen Dulles. His official title was chief financial advisor for the U.S. Army in Europe. In 1944 Simpson returned to San Francisco and became a consultant to the Betchtel-McCone Corporation. His arrival brought even more contracts from the War Department. (8)

At the end of the Second World War the Bechtel-McCone company was brought to an end. John McCone now invested much of the profits he had made from war production in Pacific Far East Lines. McCone was the majority stockholder but Steve Bechtel and Henry Kaiser were also silent investors in this company.

McCone also formed a partnership with Henry Mercer, the owner of states Marines Lines, whose vast fleets operated in the Atlantic. As Laton McCartney pointed out in ‘Friends in High Places: The Bechtel Story’, McCone was now “one of the dominant shipping figures in the world.” (9)

McCone and Bechtel were also directors of the Stanford Research Institute. McCone was also chief fund-raiser for the California Institute of Technology, whose scientists had been involved in the development of the atom bomb and were now involved in nuclear research.

McCone took a keen interest in politics and was a fanatical anti-communist. McCone told his friends that the Soviets intended to achieve “world domination”. I. F. Stone described him as a “rightest Catholic… a man with holy war views.” (10)

John L. Simpson, chief financial officer to the various corporations owned by Steve Betchel, introduced McCone to Allen Dulles at a meeting in 1947. It was at this time he became friends with William Knowland and Dwight D. Eisenhower. McCone played a lot of golf with Eisenhower and was later to play a key role in persuading him to become the Republican Party presidential candidate. In 1948 Harry S. Truman appointed McCone as Deputy to the Secretary of Defense. According to Laton McCartney, despite his title “it quickly became apparent that he was the department’s real boss.” (11)

I knew Henery Kaiser’s top aid and he told me and confirmed much of this before his death.

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.

I don’t believe a word Gene Wheaton says about anything.

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.

I don’t believe a word Gene Wheaton says about anything.

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.

I don’t believe a word Gene Wheaton says about anything.

I don’t believe a word Gene Wheaton says about anything.

First of all, I would like to thank you for showing the courage to defend James Angleton. It is something that Edward Epstein and Gus Russo are unwilling to do.

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.

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.

If you had read my books then you should be aware I included Petty’s views. Petty was a glory hound who took credit for the work of others. His report on Tenant Bagley was discredited not by Petty but by the greatest case officer in CIA history, the late George Kisevalter.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

It seems that all those authors who believe that the Soviets were behind the assassination of JFK rely heavily on information provided by James Angleton. Yet Cleveland C. Cram in his CIA investigation, Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature (declassified in 2003) completely discredits Angleton. He shows how some researchers like Edward Epstein (Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald & Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA) was totally taken in by Angleton’s disinformation campaign. I am afraid Cram is also very unkind about your book Windows: Four American Spies, the Wives They Left Behind, and the KGB'S Crippling of American Intelligence (1989).

In this document Cram is very complimentary about the books written by David C. Martin (Wilderness of Mirrors), David Wise (Molehunt) and Tom Mangold (Cold Warrior). Cram points out that these authors managed to persuade former CIA officers to tell the truth about their activities. In some cases, they were even given classified documents. Although they talked to Angleton they realised that he was an unreliable source.

Martin, Wise and Mangold basically tell the same story. Angleton became convinced that the CIA had been penetrated by a "mole" working for the KGB. He ordered his assistant, Clare Edward Petty, of the ultra-secret Special Investigation Group (SIG), to carry out a study into the possibility that a Soviet spy existed in the higher levels of the CIA. Angleton suggested that David Murphy, a former chief of the Soviet Division, was a spy. Petty eventually produced a 25 page report on Murphy that concluded that he was "probably innocent". Angleton disagreed and insisted he was a Soviet mole.

Petty also investigated Pete Bagley, another former chief of the Soviet Division. His report on Bagley ran to over 250 pages and concluded that he was a "good candidate for the mole". Angleton disagreed and insisted that his friend was a loyal CIA officer.

Petty now became suspicious of Angleton and decided to carry out a private investigation into his past. As he later pointed out: "I reviewed Angleton's entire career, going back through his relationships with Philby, his adherence to all of Golitsyn's wild theories, his false accusations against foreign services and the resulting damage to the liaison relationships, and finally his accusation against innocent Soviet Division officers."

As a result of his investigation, Petty concluded that there was an "80-85 percent probability" that Angleton was a Soviet mole. Petty showed his report to several senior CIA officials including William Colby, William Nelson and David Blee. Colby instructed Bronson Tweedy, another senior CIA officer to review Petty's findings. After several months of study, Tweedy argued that there was no justification whatsoever for assuming Angleton to be a Soviet agent.

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.

Why do you think the KGB/Castro was involved in the assassination of JFK? Is James Angleton a reliable source?

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.

1) Do CIA veterans openly acknowledge that Air America shipped opium? Is this something that is widely discussed? Should we accept this as history and not as rumor?

2) Did Angleton ever let on as to WHY Hunt was in Dallas in November 63? Could Oswald have been part of a Covert Domestic Ops plot to tie Lechuga, who'd been targeted for recruitment, to an assassination attempt on Kennedy? Or is this too far-fetched?

3) Did Angleton ever reveal what was in Mary Meyer's diary, or what he did with it?

1. I accept it as history. It was widely discussed by people in Air America and the support staff. Chris Robbin's book is very good.

2. Angleton said Hunt was in Dallas not to kill Kennedy but on his way either to or from Mexico City where the Agency had a Station Chief who had been injured in an accident. Angleton's take on the Kennedy case is all in Secret History.

3. He gave it to her children. The diary was more a sketchbook then smoking hot diary. But there was enough personal stuff in it to make clear she had been JFK's lover according to Angleton.

(1) Did you find out anything on Operation Mockingbird during your research for your book on the CIA?

(2) Did you find any links between the CIA and the Suite 8F Group?

1. In case you are unaware Dave Roman and I broke the CIA's use of the media in the article "The Spies Who Came In From The Newsroom" in 1977.

2. I don't know what the Suite8F group is.

According to Joe Trento (The Secret History of the CIA): “In the years of guerrilla warfare against Batista, Castro received guns from Trafficante. In return, Castro promised Trafficante control of gambling in Cuba once the revolution succeeded. Trafficante also allowed Castro’s supporters to bring heroin into Miami and sell it on his turf to help finance the revolution.” (page 199)

He does not give his sources for this statement. On the next page he quotes Ricardo Canete, a Cuban-American, working for William Harvey’s anti-Castro operation and became embroiled in Trafficante’s criminal activity. He described how it worked: “Fidel needed money, and he needed information. A man out of the Cuban Mission to the UN named Fernandez ran the Cuban DGI (in the United States). He took orders from Trafficante. It was clear by the late 1960s that drugs and protection being run through Little Havana were far more profitable than anything the mob had done in Cuba.”

Ricardo Canete was probably Trento’s source? If so, is he trustworthy? Could he been part of a campaign to undermine Castro’s moral and political credibility. For example, one of the things that is clear is that after he established himself in power, Castro destroyed the Mafia’s business interests (gambling, drugs, prostitution, etc.) in Cuba.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The page 199 stuff came from John Sherwood, Bob Crowley and several others I still cannot name publicly.

Canete was one of my sources and I found him trustworthy on these matters. Actually Castro did not shut all ALL Mafia activities down. His actions regarding Tafficante baffled US law enforcement. By the way much of this ran counter to what the CIA and Justice Department expected.

The import of all this is that Trafficante had JM WAVE fully penetrated acording to Sherwood and others.

According to Joe Trento (The Secret History of the CIA): “In the years of guerrilla warfare against Batista, Castro received guns from Trafficante. In return, Castro promised Trafficante control of gambling in Cuba once the revolution succeeded. Trafficante also allowed Castro’s supporters to bring heroin into Miami and sell it on his turf to help finance the revolution.” (page 199)

He does not give his sources for this statement. On the next page he quotes Ricardo Canete, a Cuban-American, working for William Harvey’s anti-Castro operation and became embroiled in Trafficante’s criminal activity. He described how it worked: “Fidel needed money, and he needed information. A man out of the Cuban Mission to the UN named Fernandez ran the Cuban DGI (in the United States). He took orders from Trafficante. It was clear by the late 1960s that drugs and protection being run through Little Havana were far more profitable than anything the mob had done in Cuba.”

Ricardo Canete was probably Trento’s source? If so, is he trustworthy? Could he been part of a campaign to undermine Castro’s moral and political credibility. For example, one of the things that is clear is that after he established himself in power, Castro destroyed the Mafia’s business interests (gambling, drugs, prostitution, etc.) in Cuba.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The page 199 stuff came from John Sherwood, Bob Crowley and several others I still cannot name publicly.

Canete was one of my sources and I found him trustworthy on these matters. Actually Castro did not shut all ALL Mafia activities down. His actions regarding Tafficante baffled US law enforcement. By the way much of this ran counter to what the CIA and Justice Department expected.

The import of all this is that Trafficante had JM WAVE fully penetrated acording to Sherwood and others.

Joseph Trento has worked for CNN's Special Assignment Unit, the Wilmington News Journal, and the journalist Jack Anderson.

In 1987 Trento published Prescription for Disaster: From the Glory of Apollo to the Betrayal of the Shuttle. Trento co-authored with Susan Trento and William Corson, Windows: Four American Spies, the Wives They Left Behind, and the KGB'S Crippling of American Intelligence (1989). Trento and his co-authors argue that the Central Intelligence Agency had lost its war with the KGB. This was followed by Renegade CIA: Inside the Covert Intelligence Operations of George Bush (1993).

Trento's next book was The Secret History of the CIA, 1946-1989 (2001) Trento argues that the "CIA has been a colossal failure, outmaneuvered by its enemies, penetrated by the KGB, and duped at every turn".

Joseph Trento's latest book is Prelude to Terror: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty, the Rogue CIA, and the Comprising of American Intelligence (2005).