Don Bohning

Touché re "small potatoes" It was a bad choice of words to describe Iran/Contra although in comparison to some of the things the current Bush II administration has done during six years in office, it may wind up as being rather small potatoes historically. I do think, however, that Iran-Contra was covered extensively and quite well journalistically and at the time but perhaps less so historically. And it certainly was covered much more extensively and aggressively than the beginnings of the Iraq war and other travesties of the current administration in Washington.

Touché re "small potatoes" It was a bad choice of words to describe Iran/Contra although in comparison to some of the things the current Bush II administration has done during six years in office, it may wind up as being rather small potatoes historically. I do think, however, that Iran-Contra was covered extensively and quite well journalistically and at the time but perhaps less so historically. And it certainly was covered much more extensively and aggressively than the beginnings of the Iraq war and other travesties of the current administration in Washington.

Touché re "small potatoes" It was a bad choice of words to describe Iran/Contra although in comparison to some of the things the current Bush II administration has done during six years in office, it may wind up as being rather small potatoes historically. I do think, however, that Iran-Contra was covered extensively and quite well journalistically and at the time but perhaps less so historically. And it certainly was covered much more extensively and aggressively than the beginnings of the Iraq war and other travesties of the current administration in Washington.

I suspect there will be more books written by historians on the subjects cited above after historians have further time to digest the information available. I suspect, also, the historian is a bit more concerned about damaging his legacy and thus a bit more cautious in drawing conclusions than the journalist is, judging by some of the books that have appeared so far on the subjects above. To me, at least, the most significant difference between a journalist - investigative and otherwise - and an historian, is that a journalist relies much more heavily on what he sees and hears than a historian, who depends largely on the written record available to him or her. There are, of courses, exceptions and variations and advantages and disadvantages to both. As the old cliche goes, the journalists provides the first draft of history. From there, it is up to the historian, and sometimes the journalists becomes the historian who writes the later drafts, which I hope is what I did. In that sense, I think I made the transition from journalist to historian with my book. I have two books on my bookshelf I can see from where I am writing this. One is by Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, entitled: The Plot to Kill the President and subtitled Organized Crime Assassinated J.F.K. The other is entitled The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi. Blakey was the staff director for the House Select Committee on Assassinations; Fonzi was a committee investigator. In their books, they come to, or in the case of Fonzi, at least imply, different conclusions as to who killed JFK. Blakey says the mafia, Fonzi inplies it was rouge CIA folks and Cuban exiles. For me, they are somewhat of a metaphor as to why both historians nor journalists are reluctant to get entangled with the Kennedy Assassination. We still don't know if Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy and we probably won't know a hundred years from now whether Kennedy's assassination was a conspiracy. So why would a serious historian or investigative journalist waste time time on amorphous conspiracy theories they likely will never be answered to anyone's satisfication? As virtually every year in recent times, including 2005, there will be two, three or four new books that will come out on the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination - all with different theories purporting to identify those responsible for the assassination. Regarding Iran/Contra, I would respectfully disagree - at least on the journalistic side - that it was not well covered. The Miami Herald, for whom I worked at the time, won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of Iran/Contra for which I was one of the editors. There is - as a recall although it has been sometime since I read it - an excellent book entitled Landslide, written by Jane Mayer & Doyle McManus [two journalists] that focuses heavily on Iran/Contra, a scandal for which several officials were indicted and went to jail. While it was a big deal at the time, in view of what has been going on in Washington it would now appear to be pretty small potatoes. But I suspect some enterprising historian will eventually revisit it in the not to distant future, perhaps as a doctoral thesis.

I don't really consider myself an investigative journalist, but more a foreign affairs report and analyst, particularly of the Western Hemisphere. That is also what I consider my book, The Castro Obsession, to be: an in depth analysis of the subject and the period period covered. In other words, just a much more detailed effort at the types kinds of articles I wrote during much of my four decade plus journalistic career at The Miami Herald. To me, at least, the most significant difference between a journalist - investigative and otherwise - and an historian, is that a journalist relies much more heavily on what he sees and hears than a historian, who depends largely on the written record available to him or her. There are, of courses, exceptions and variations and advantages and disadvantages to both. As the old cliche goes, the journalists provides the first draft of history. From there, it is up to the historian, and sometimes the journalists becomes the historian who writes the later drafts, which I hope is what I did. In that sense, I think I made the transition from journalist to historian with my book. Again, from a journalist's perspective, probably anything you write that has your name on it - even an obituary - has the potential for getting you into trouble with someone, especially if you make an error. That is why it is so essential for a journalist to get his facts right; if the facts are right it is much more difficult for even those with power and influence to get you into trouble. I don't think I personally, as a journalist, tend to write about controversial subjects, unless you call politics a controversial subject. I certainly have written some things that people don't agree with, but rather than investigative reporting they are usually more of an analytical nature. In that respect, I really don't consider myself an "investigative journalists" in the fashion of Seymour Hersh, for example, who combines exposes with a bit of analysis. I focus more on analysis, based on interviews and research, than the reporter who goes out to seek corruption in the police department. I have two books on my bookshelf I can see from where I am writing this. One is by Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, entitled: The Plot to Kill the President and subtitled Organized Crime Assassinated J.F.K. The other is entitled The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi. Blakey was the staff director for the House Select Committee on Assassinations; Fonzi was a committee investigator. In their books, they come to, or in the case of Fonzi, at least imply, different conclusions as to who killed JFK. Blakey says the mafia, Fonzi inplies it was rouge CIA folks and Cuban exiles. For me, they are somewhat of a metaphor as to why both historians nor journalists are reluctant to get entangled with the Kennedy Assassination. We still don't know if Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy and we probably won't know a hundred years from now whether Kennedy's assassination was a conspiracy. So why would a serious historian or investigative journalist waste time time on amorphous conspiracy theories they likely will never be answered to anyone's satisfication? As virtually every year in recent times, including 2005, there will be two, three or four new books that will come out on the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination - all with different theories purporting to identify those responsible for the assassination. Regarding Iran/Contra, I would respectfully disagree - at least on the journalistic side - that it was not well covered. The Miami Herald, for whom I worked at the time, won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of Iran/Contra for which I was one of the editors. There is - as a recall although it has been sometime since I read it - an excellent book entitled Landslide, written by Jane Mayer & Doyle McManus [two journalists] that focuses heavily on Iran/Contra, a scandal for which several officials were indicted and went to jail. While it was a big deal at the time, in view of what has been going on in Washington it would now appear to be pretty small potatoes. But I suspect some enterprising historian will eventually revisit it in the not to distant future, perhaps as a doctoral thesis. I speak only for myself here, but I wrote my book, The Castro Obsession: US Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, for two reasons: to satisfy my own curiousity and to help complete the historical record. I had lived in South Florida and worked for The Miami Herald at the time all the activity was secretly taking place. While one was generally aware that something was going on, its full scope began to slowly emerge with the Church Committee hearings in the mid-1970s on Alleged Assassination Plots Against Foreign Leaders. With the end of the Cold War an increasing amount of documents were being declassified and those involved became much more willing to discuss their roles. I was fortunately enough to have gotten to know some of the participants in the 1960s and others in the 1990s after they retired so began doing interviews with them in the mid-1990s. I also relied on numerous other authors, articles, reports and documents but to me, the interviews were the most important, providing some human context to the written words already available As for credibility, having worked as a journalist form nearly 50 years, I think my intiution is quite reliable in judging whether people I am interviewing are being truthful. As far as documents and whether illegal behavior taking place, it was not a problem I was confronted with in writing my book, given the time that had passed and since no illegal behavior apparently occurred by anyone involved, unless you consider assassination attempts against Castro illegal behavior, which I doubt anyone did at the time, even though they may or may not have been authorized by the sitting president. I think it is partially answered in my response to Question #6. I suspect there will be more books written by historians on the subjects cited above after historians have further time to digest the information available. I suspect, also, the historian is a bit more concerned about damaging his legacy and thus a bit more cautious in drawing conclusions than the journalist is, judging by some of the books that have appeared so far on the subjects above.

I don't really consider myself an investigative journalist, but more a foreign affairs report and analyst, particularly of the Western Hemisphere. That is also what I consider my book, The Castro Obsession, to be: an in depth analysis of the subject and the period period covered. In other words, just a much more detailed effort at the types kinds of articles I wrote during much of my four decade plus journalistic career at The Miami Herald. To me, at least, the most significant difference between a journalist - investigative and otherwise - and an historian, is that a journalist relies much more heavily on what he sees and hears than a historian, who depends largely on the written record available to him or her. There are, of courses, exceptions and variations and advantages and disadvantages to both. As the old cliche goes, the journalists provides the first draft of history. From there, it is up to the historian, and sometimes the journalists becomes the historian who writes the later drafts, which I hope is what I did. In that sense, I think I made the transition from journalist to historian with my book. Again, from a journalist's perspective, probably anything you write that has your name on it - even an obituary - has the potential for getting you into trouble with someone, especially if you make an error. That is why it is so essential for a journalist to get his facts right; if the facts are right it is much more difficult for even those with power and influence to get you into trouble. I don't think I personally, as a journalist, tend to write about controversial subjects, unless you call politics a controversial subject. I certainly have written some things that people don't agree with, but rather than investigative reporting they are usually more of an analytical nature. In that respect, I really don't consider myself an "investigative journalists" in the fashion of Seymour Hersh, for example, who combines exposes with a bit of analysis. I focus more on analysis, based on interviews and research, than the reporter who goes out to seek corruption in the police department. I have two books on my bookshelf I can see from where I am writing this. One is by Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, entitled: The Plot to Kill the President and subtitled Organized Crime Assassinated J.F.K. The other is entitled The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi. Blakey was the staff director for the House Select Committee on Assassinations; Fonzi was a committee investigator. In their books, they come to, or in the case of Fonzi, at least imply, different conclusions as to who killed JFK. Blakey says the mafia, Fonzi inplies it was rouge CIA folks and Cuban exiles. For me, they are somewhat of a metaphor as to why both historians nor journalists are reluctant to get entangled with the Kennedy Assassination. We still don't know if Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy and we probably won't know a hundred years from now whether Kennedy's assassination was a conspiracy. So why would a serious historian or investigative journalist waste time time on amorphous conspiracy theories they likely will never be answered to anyone's satisfication? As virtually every year in recent times, including 2005, there will be two, three or four new books that will come out on the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination - all with different theories purporting to identify those responsible for the assassination. Regarding Iran/Contra, I would respectfully disagree - at least on the journalistic side - that it was not well covered. The Miami Herald, for whom I worked at the time, won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of Iran/Contra for which I was one of the editors. There is - as a recall although it has been sometime since I read it - an excellent book entitled Landslide, written by Jane Mayer & Doyle McManus [two journalists] that focuses heavily on Iran/Contra, a scandal for which several officials were indicted and went to jail. While it was a big deal at the time, in view of what has been going on in Washington it would now appear to be pretty small potatoes. But I suspect some enterprising historian will eventually revisit it in the not to distant future, perhaps as a doctoral thesis. I speak only for myself here, but I wrote my book, The Castro Obsession: US Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, for two reasons: to satisfy my own curiousity and to help complete the historical record. I had lived in South Florida and worked for The Miami Herald at the time all the activity was secretly taking place. While one was generally aware that something was going on, its full scope began to slowly emerge with the Church Committee hearings in the mid-1970s on Alleged Assassination Plots Against Foreign Leaders. With the end of the Cold War an increasing amount of documents were being declassified and those involved became much more willing to discuss their roles. I was fortunately enough to have gotten to know some of the participants in the 1960s and others in the 1990s after they retired so began doing interviews with them in the mid-1990s. I also relied on numerous other authors, articles, reports and documents but to me, the interviews were the most important, providing some human context to the written words already available As for credibility, having worked as a journalist form nearly 50 years, I think my intiution is quite reliable in judging whether people I am interviewing are being truthful. As far as documents and whether illegal behavior taking place, it was not a problem I was confronted with in writing my book, given the time that had passed and since no illegal behavior apparently occurred by anyone involved, unless you consider assassination attempts against Castro illegal behavior, which I doubt anyone did at the time, even though they may or may not have been authorized by the sitting president. I think it is partially answered in my response to Question #6. I suspect there will be more books written by historians on the subjects cited above after historians have further time to digest the information available. I suspect, also, the historian is a bit more concerned about damaging his legacy and thus a bit more cautious in drawing conclusions than the journalist is, judging by some of the books that have appeared so far on the subjects above.

1. While I had not heard of it, I am not surprised that there was something called a secret anti-Castro activity called AMWORLD, either for a CIA operation or a broader government wide operation [such as Mongoose] during 1963. When I was researching by book, the Castro Obsession, I was a bit puzzled by the fact that the various covert activities that year - with the exception of AMLASH/Cubela; and AMTRUNK - did not have a code name; they included Oliva's consolidation of all Cubans into a single unit in the US Army; Artime's activities in Central America Hinckle and Turner say it was called Second Naval Guerrilla but both Rafael Quintero and Sam Halpern told me they never heard of any such thing]; Commandos Mambises, and the hit and run sabotage operation run by JMWAVE out of Miami, etc., all of which I describe in detail in my book. But reading some of the Ultimate Sacrifice excerpts etc., it is clear to me that they are talking about some of the same things. 2. It’s no secret that Cyrus Vance was leading a good bit of the effort although the entire anti-Castro operation according to documents was overseen the State Department’s Coordinator of Cuban Affairs, beginning in early January 1963. That job initially was held by Sterling Cottrell who was succeeded by John Crimmins. 3. Alexander Haig, in his book, INNER CIRCLES [page 109] identifies "Cyrus Vance as the executive agent for the entire federal government in dealing with Cuba and the threat the Castro's regime posed to the Western Hemisphere. This included responsibility for coordinating a secret war against Cuba that encompassed sabotage, commando raises, and propaganda and other clandestine activities." That could have been AMWORLD. 4. I do not believe, however, there was a Dec. 1, 1963 date scheduled for an invasion of Cuba nor do I believe - as indicated by what I have read of Waldron's account - that the Mafia was involved in this effort. 5. The authors say the pledge against an invasion never went into effect because Castro refused on-site inspections of the missile withdrawals. Whether the no-invasion pledge was valid or not is still an open question. It came up again in the early 1970s during the Nixon administration when the Soviets were sending nuclear powered submarines to Cienfuegos for refueling and, to the best of my recollection, the no invasion pledge was still in dispute. Minutes of a Nov. 12, 1962, Excom meeting, notes that: “The President commented that an assurance covering invasion does not ban covert actions or an economic blockade or tie our hands completely. We can’t give the impression that Castro is home free.” I don’t think there is any documentation that shows Kennedy considered the pledge null and void. Subsequent documents make it clear that U2 inspection overflights were ongoing to verify missile withdrawal, with Washington concerned a U2 might be downed by a SAM missile. As outlined by the authors, the no-invasion pledge would not have applied in any event, if there was a coup in Cuba and the coup leaders asked for international help. 6. It sounds like a cop-out to me where the authors say they know, but won’t identify, the so-called “coup leader.” The excuse about violating national security laws at this late date is pretty lame. I doubt that anyone would prosecute them. 7. Another graph says they have discovered a Dec. 10, 1963, cable sent to the CIA director, and attributed to a “western diplomat”, reporting “Che Guevara was alleged to be under house arrest for plotting to overthrow Castro.” Having worked at the Miami Herald’s Latin staff for many years, I can’t tell you how many similar unfounded rumors - from such sources - kept popping up, ranging from Castro’s assassination to Guevara’s disappearance. If Guevara had been under house arrest for plotting to overthrow Castro, he never would have been allowed to leave Cuba. 8. They say Cy Vance was the “only man” who knew everything about this plot besides Robert Kennedy, and that Vance “was one of the few military leaders who knew the full scope of C-Day while the plan was active.” The reason that Vance drafted the plan - if he did - is because under a new June 19, 1963, multi-agency covert action program against Cuba, Vance, as Secretary of the Army, was designated by President Kennedy as “the executive agent for the entire federal government in dealing with Cuba [Al Haig, Inner Circles, page 109]. 9. Among others were generals, Max Taylor, Joe Carroll, etc. along with John McCone, Richard Helms, Des Fitzgerald and key field operatives such as David Morales and Dave Phillips. They say there is no evidence that J. Edgar Hoover knew about it. Why should Hoover know? He didn’t know anything about any of the other covert operations against Cuba either, Bay of Pigs, Mongoose, etc. Others likely to have known about such a plan were Joe Califano [Vance’s aide] and Alexander Haig, then an Army colonel, both actively involved in the anti-Castro efforts. Both are still alive, both have written memoirs. I interviewed Haig at his home in West Palm Beach for my own book and we discussed Cuba extensively. He gave no indication such a plan existed. Califano refused several interview requests, but he does deal with Cuba in a chapter in his 2004 book and reiterates again that both he and LBJ think Castro had a hand in the assassination. 10. I find it difficult to believe that if the coup plan as it is described by the authors existed, that we would not have heard of it previously. Several of the people listed above have written memoirs, i.e, Helms, Phillips, etc. and make no mention of it, even though they discuss other such covert operations. The authors also error in saying that the CIA planed to assassinate Castro began in 1959 under Vice President Nixon. I also dispute that the CIA – without telling the Kennedys – was continuing to work with the Mafia on plot against Castro in the fall of 1963. I don’t believe that. And there is certainly no indication of that in either the Church committee report or the CIA IG’S 1967 report on plots to assassinate Castro. In fact, the Church Committee says explicitly that: “the first action against the life of a Cuban leader sponsored by the CIA” occurred in July 1960. 11. It is also odd, that the authors don’t mention Sam Giancani, who was involved with the CIA in assassination plots against Castro. There were two CIA/Mafia plots to assassinate Castro, one originated with Richard Bissell [or Sheffield Edwards, depending on who you believe] in August 1960; Robert Kennedy, according to declassified documents, became aware of it in May 1962 when he was alerted by Hoover that he had evidence Giancani’s girlfriend was sleeping with the President. Bobby then got a briefing from Lawrence Houston, the CIA's general consul, and Sheffield Edwards, the CIA’S security chief on the first Mafia-CIA attempt against Castro. The only other recorded Mafia-CIA attempt to assassinate Castro was underway at the same time – unknown to Bobby Kennedy – this time under the direction of Bill Harvey, head of Task Force W, the CIA component of Operation Mongoose. It was essentially a resurrection of the failed earlier Mafia plot. 12. The authors also mention Operation Amtrunk as being a CIA operation which looked for disaffected Cuban military officers. It was a CIA operation, but one that was forced on the CIA. The operation originated – as shown in declassified documents in my possession - with two Miamians exiled from Cuba, George Volsky. Their codename for it was Operation Leonardo. Logistical support for it was essentially forced on the CIA by the Kennedy White House, through the influence of NYTimes correspondent Tad Szulc, a close friend of Volsky’s. 13. It appears the authors rely heavily on Enrique Ruiz-Williams. While he was very close to Bobby Kennedy, I think he was less important the he led the authors to believe and not nearly as important – or any closer to – Bobby Kennedy than Erneido Oliva [who is not even indexed in the book. Oliva was designated by President Kennedy [an article appeared in the NYTimes] as the representative of the Bay of Pigs Brigade. His liaison at the Pentagon was Al Haig. 14. My own conclusion is that AMWORLD – if that is the codename for the operation – was one among many potential plans to get rid of Castro and that it was “a just in case” plan, that may or may not have been tied in with AMLASH [Rolando Cubela] and perhaps Manuel Artime and Erneido Oliva, both captured at the Bay of Pigs, who became very close to Bobby Kennedy. As noted in my own book [see pages 187-188], and as related to me by Oliva, he and Artime [Ruiz-Williams was not present] met in mid-January 1963 with Bobby Kennedy – less than a month after they had been released from Cuban prisoners - they met Kennedy at his home in Hickory Hill, Virgina. There, according to Oliva, he outlined a new anti-Castro plan to them. Artime would set up guerrilla camps in Central America and Oliva would integrate all the Cubans in the US military into a single unit and the two projects would eventually mesh. 15. In their excerpts summary, the authors express amazement at one point that “a check of newspaper files from the summer and fall of 1963 uncovered a few articles confirming that there had been activity by Kennedy-backed Cuban exiles in Central America at the time.” No wonder, because by then, Artime’s deputy, Rafael Quintero had been traveling back and forth to Costa Rica and Nicaragua arranging to set up the Artime camps with about 300 recruits and it had already started to get attention in the Miami newspapers. 16. I have a series of lengthy declassified documents obtained at the LBJ Library in Austin, prepared in advance of a Dec. 19, 1963, briefing for LBJ Cuba, including a 22-page draft document dated Dec. 15, 1963 that reviews “Current Cuba Policy.” It starts out by noting that: “The bare minimum objective of our police is a Cuba which poses no threat to its neighbors and which is not a Soviet satellite. In moving towards this objective we have rejected the options of unprovoked U.S. military intervention in Cuba and of an effective, total blockade around Cuba – primarily because they would risk another US/USSR confrontation. Instead, we are engaged in a variety of unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral measures, both defensive and offensive, which stop short of these drastic measures.” MY OWN COMMENT: It hardly seems likely that such a memorandum for the president would be written two weeks after an alleged invasion was scheduled without any mention of it. 17. Finally, I close with an email exchange with Oliva on March 28, 2000, as a followup to an interview I had with him earlier that month in Washington. Q – Did anyone else attend the January 1963 meeting at Hickory Hill in addition to Bobby Kennedy, Artime and yourself? A – No one else was present during that particular meeting with Bobby Kennedy. However, the information I provided to you can be easily corroborated. Artime spent more than six million dollars in Central America with its paramilitary operations and I was, until the end of the program, in charge of the military side as Alexander Haig states in his Inner Circle book. Q – What exactly did Bobby Kennedy tell you other than they were going to fund the Artime program with $6 million and create the Cuban unit in the U.S. military? A – That was the main topic of our conversation? Q – Did he at anytime indicate that it would eventually lead to Castro’s overthrow? And, if so, by invasion or a joint operation between the Cuban unit and Artime’s group? A – At that time it was not discussed any invasion of Cuba. Only that the two programs would eventually join forces to facilitate the liberation of Cuba. How? I never asked that, but the commitment on my program was open to the public to see. I have in my possession many clippings of interviews I granted while training at Fort Benning and Fort Sill. In those interviews my expectations and understanding of the training provided by the US Army, Navy and Air Force. Q – You said you finished your plan – requested in September (1963) – for the Cuban unit in December whey they told you it was no longer needed. Can you tell me if the plan contemplated an invasion? A – As stated before, no. Q – What exactly was Artime’s group supposed to accomplish? A – By attacking targets of opportunity [in Cuba], infiltrating personnel to reorganize the underground in Cuba, he would have created the favorable conditions for a larger military action against Castro. All this, of course, after the famous – or infamous – K-K [Kennedy-Khrushchev/NO INVASION] pact.

1. While I had not heard of it, I am not surprised that there was something called a secret anti-Castro activity called AMWORLD, either for a CIA operation or a broader government wide operation [such as Mongoose] during 1963. When I was researching by book, the Castro Obsession, I was a bit puzzled by the fact that the various covert activities that year - with the exception of AMLASH/Cubela; and AMTRUNK - did not have a code name; they included Oliva's consolidation of all Cubans into a single unit in the US Army; Artime's activities in Central America Hinckle and Turner say it was called Second Naval Guerrilla but both Rafael Quintero and Sam Halpern told me they never heard of any such thing]; Commandos Mambises, and the hit and run sabotage operation run by JMWAVE out of Miami, etc., all of which I describe in detail in my book. But reading some of the Ultimate Sacrifice excerpts etc., it is clear to me that they are talking about some of the same things. 2. It’s no secret that Cyrus Vance was leading a good bit of the effort although the entire anti-Castro operation according to documents was overseen the State Department’s Coordinator of Cuban Affairs, beginning in early January 1963. That job initially was held by Sterling Cottrell who was succeeded by John Crimmins. 3. Alexander Haig, in his book, INNER CIRCLES [page 109] identifies "Cyrus Vance as the executive agent for the entire federal government in dealing with Cuba and the threat the Castro's regime posed to the Western Hemisphere. This included responsibility for coordinating a secret war against Cuba that encompassed sabotage, commando raises, and propaganda and other clandestine activities." That could have been AMWORLD. 4. I do not believe, however, there was a Dec. 1, 1963 date scheduled for an invasion of Cuba nor do I believe - as indicated by what I have read of Waldron's account - that the Mafia was involved in this effort. 5. The authors say the pledge against an invasion never went into effect because Castro refused on-site inspections of the missile withdrawals. Whether the no-invasion pledge was valid or not is still an open question. It came up again in the early 1970s during the Nixon administration when the Soviets were sending nuclear powered submarines to Cienfuegos for refueling and, to the best of my recollection, the no invasion pledge was still in dispute. Minutes of a Nov. 12, 1962, Excom meeting, notes that: “The President commented that an assurance covering invasion does not ban covert actions or an economic blockade or tie our hands completely. We can’t give the impression that Castro is home free.” I don’t think there is any documentation that shows Kennedy considered the pledge null and void. Subsequent documents make it clear that U2 inspection overflights were ongoing to verify missile withdrawal, with Washington concerned a U2 might be downed by a SAM missile. As outlined by the authors, the no-invasion pledge would not have applied in any event, if there was a coup in Cuba and the coup leaders asked for international help. 6. It sounds like a cop-out to me where the authors say they know, but won’t identify, the so-called “coup leader.” The excuse about violating national security laws at this late date is pretty lame. I doubt that anyone would prosecute them. 7. Another graph says they have discovered a Dec. 10, 1963, cable sent to the CIA director, and attributed to a “western diplomat”, reporting “Che Guevara was alleged to be under house arrest for plotting to overthrow Castro.” Having worked at the Miami Herald’s Latin staff for many years, I can’t tell you how many similar unfounded rumors - from such sources - kept popping up, ranging from Castro’s assassination to Guevara’s disappearance. If Guevara had been under house arrest for plotting to overthrow Castro, he never would have been allowed to leave Cuba. 8. They say Cy Vance was the “only man” who knew everything about this plot besides Robert Kennedy, and that Vance “was one of the few military leaders who knew the full scope of C-Day while the plan was active.” The reason that Vance drafted the plan - if he did - is because under a new June 19, 1963, multi-agency covert action program against Cuba, Vance, as Secretary of the Army, was designated by President Kennedy as “the executive agent for the entire federal government in dealing with Cuba [Al Haig, Inner Circles, page 109]. 9. Among others were generals, Max Taylor, Joe Carroll, etc. along with John McCone, Richard Helms, Des Fitzgerald and key field operatives such as David Morales and Dave Phillips. They say there is no evidence that J. Edgar Hoover knew about it. Why should Hoover know? He didn’t know anything about any of the other covert operations against Cuba either, Bay of Pigs, Mongoose, etc. Others likely to have known about such a plan were Joe Califano [Vance’s aide] and Alexander Haig, then an Army colonel, both actively involved in the anti-Castro efforts. Both are still alive, both have written memoirs. I interviewed Haig at his home in West Palm Beach for my own book and we discussed Cuba extensively. He gave no indication such a plan existed. Califano refused several interview requests, but he does deal with Cuba in a chapter in his 2004 book and reiterates again that both he and LBJ think Castro had a hand in the assassination. 10. I find it difficult to believe that if the coup plan as it is described by the authors existed, that we would not have heard of it previously. Several of the people listed above have written memoirs, i.e, Helms, Phillips, etc. and make no mention of it, even though they discuss other such covert operations. The authors also error in saying that the CIA planed to assassinate Castro began in 1959 under Vice President Nixon. I also dispute that the CIA – without telling the Kennedys – was continuing to work with the Mafia on plot against Castro in the fall of 1963. I don’t believe that. And there is certainly no indication of that in either the Church committee report or the CIA IG’S 1967 report on plots to assassinate Castro. In fact, the Church Committee says explicitly that: “the first action against the life of a Cuban leader sponsored by the CIA” occurred in July 1960. 11. It is also odd, that the authors don’t mention Sam Giancani, who was involved with the CIA in assassination plots against Castro. There were two CIA/Mafia plots to assassinate Castro, one originated with Richard Bissell [or Sheffield Edwards, depending on who you believe] in August 1960; Robert Kennedy, according to declassified documents, became aware of it in May 1962 when he was alerted by Hoover that he had evidence Giancani’s girlfriend was sleeping with the President. Bobby then got a briefing from Lawrence Houston, the CIA's general consul, and Sheffield Edwards, the CIA’S security chief on the first Mafia-CIA attempt against Castro. The only other recorded Mafia-CIA attempt to assassinate Castro was underway at the same time – unknown to Bobby Kennedy – this time under the direction of Bill Harvey, head of Task Force W, the CIA component of Operation Mongoose. It was essentially a resurrection of the failed earlier Mafia plot. 12. The authors also mention Operation Amtrunk as being a CIA operation which looked for disaffected Cuban military officers. It was a CIA operation, but one that was forced on the CIA. The operation originated – as shown in declassified documents in my possession - with two Miamians exiled from Cuba, George Volsky. Their codename for it was Operation Leonardo. Logistical support for it was essentially forced on the CIA by the Kennedy White House, through the influence of NYTimes correspondent Tad Szulc, a close friend of Volsky’s. 13. It appears the authors rely heavily on Enrique Ruiz-Williams. While he was very close to Bobby Kennedy, I think he was less important the he led the authors to believe and not nearly as important – or any closer to – Bobby Kennedy than Erneido Oliva [who is not even indexed in the book. Oliva was designated by President Kennedy [an article appeared in the NYTimes] as the representative of the Bay of Pigs Brigade. His liaison at the Pentagon was Al Haig. 14. My own conclusion is that AMWORLD – if that is the codename for the operation – was one among many potential plans to get rid of Castro and that it was “a just in case” plan, that may or may not have been tied in with AMLASH [Rolando Cubela] and perhaps Manuel Artime and Erneido Oliva, both captured at the Bay of Pigs, who became very close to Bobby Kennedy. As noted in my own book [see pages 187-188], and as related to me by Oliva, he and Artime [Ruiz-Williams was not present] met in mid-January 1963 with Bobby Kennedy – less than a month after they had been released from Cuban prisoners - they met Kennedy at his home in Hickory Hill, Virgina. There, according to Oliva, he outlined a new anti-Castro plan to them. Artime would set up guerrilla camps in Central America and Oliva would integrate all the Cubans in the US military into a single unit and the two projects would eventually mesh. 15. In their excerpts summary, the authors express amazement at one point that “a check of newspaper files from the summer and fall of 1963 uncovered a few articles confirming that there had been activity by Kennedy-backed Cuban exiles in Central America at the time.” No wonder, because by then, Artime’s deputy, Rafael Quintero had been traveling back and forth to Costa Rica and Nicaragua arranging to set up the Artime camps with about 300 recruits and it had already started to get attention in the Miami newspapers. 16. I have a series of lengthy declassified documents obtained at the LBJ Library in Austin, prepared in advance of a Dec. 19, 1963, briefing for LBJ Cuba, including a 22-page draft document dated Dec. 15, 1963 that reviews “Current Cuba Policy.” It starts out by noting that: “The bare minimum objective of our police is a Cuba which poses no threat to its neighbors and which is not a Soviet satellite. In moving towards this objective we have rejected the options of unprovoked U.S. military intervention in Cuba and of an effective, total blockade around Cuba – primarily because they would risk another US/USSR confrontation. Instead, we are engaged in a variety of unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral measures, both defensive and offensive, which stop short of these drastic measures.” MY OWN COMMENT: It hardly seems likely that such a memorandum for the president would be written two weeks after an alleged invasion was scheduled without any mention of it. 17. Finally, I close with an email exchange with Oliva on March 28, 2000, as a followup to an interview I had with him earlier that month in Washington. Q – Did anyone else attend the January 1963 meeting at Hickory Hill in addition to Bobby Kennedy, Artime and yourself? A – No one else was present during that particular meeting with Bobby Kennedy. However, the information I provided to you can be easily corroborated. Artime spent more than six million dollars in Central America with its paramilitary operations and I was, until the end of the program, in charge of the military side as Alexander Haig states in his Inner Circle book. Q – What exactly did Bobby Kennedy tell you other than they were going to fund the Artime program with $6 million and create the Cuban unit in the U.S. military? A – That was the main topic of our conversation? Q – Did he at anytime indicate that it would eventually lead to Castro’s overthrow? And, if so, by invasion or a joint operation between the Cuban unit and Artime’s group? A – At that time it was not discussed any invasion of Cuba. Only that the two programs would eventually join forces to facilitate the liberation of Cuba. How? I never asked that, but the commitment on my program was open to the public to see. I have in my possession many clippings of interviews I granted while training at Fort Benning and Fort Sill. In those interviews my expectations and understanding of the training provided by the US Army, Navy and Air Force. Q – You said you finished your plan – requested in September (1963) – for the Cuban unit in December whey they told you it was no longer needed. Can you tell me if the plan contemplated an invasion? A – As stated before, no. Q – What exactly was Artime’s group supposed to accomplish? A – By attacking targets of opportunity [in Cuba], infiltrating personnel to reorganize the underground in Cuba, he would have created the favorable conditions for a larger military action against Castro. All this, of course, after the famous – or infamous – K-K [Kennedy-Khrushchev/NO INVASION] pact.

1. While I had not heard of it, I am not surprised that there was something called a secret anti-Castro activity called AMWORLD, either for a CIA operation or a broader government wide operation [such as Mongoose] during 1963. When I was researching by book, the Castro Obsession, I was a bit puzzled by the fact that the various covert activities that year - with the exception of AMLASH/Cubela; and AMTRUNK - did not have a code name; they included Oliva's consolidation of all Cubans into a single unit in the US Army; Artime's activities in Central America Hinckle and Turner say it was called Second Naval Guerrilla but both Rafael Quintero and Sam Halpern told me they never heard of any such thing]; Commandos Mambises, and the hit and run sabotage operation run by JMWAVE out of Miami, etc., all of which I describe in detail in my book. But reading some of the Ultimate Sacrifice excerpts etc., it is clear to me that they are talking about some of the same things. 2. It’s no secret that Cyrus Vance was leading a good bit of the effort although the entire anti-Castro operation according to documents was overseen the State Department’s Coordinator of Cuban Affairs, beginning in early January 1963. That job initially was held by Sterling Cottrell who was succeeded by John Crimmins. 3. Alexander Haig, in his book, INNER CIRCLES [page 109] identifies "Cyrus Vance as the executive agent for the entire federal government in dealing with Cuba and the threat the Castro's regime posed to the Western Hemisphere. This included responsibility for coordinating a secret war against Cuba that encompassed sabotage, commando raises, and propaganda and other clandestine activities." That could have been AMWORLD. 4. I do not believe, however, there was a Dec. 1, 1963 date scheduled for an invasion of Cuba nor do I believe - as indicated by what I have read of Waldron's account - that the Mafia was involved in this effort. 5. The authors say the pledge against an invasion never went into effect because Castro refused on-site inspections of the missile withdrawals. Whether the no-invasion pledge was valid or not is still an open question. It came up again in the early 1970s during the Nixon administration when the Soviets were sending nuclear powered submarines to Cienfuegos for refueling and, to the best of my recollection, the no invasion pledge was still in dispute. Minutes of a Nov. 12, 1962, Excom meeting, notes that: “The President commented that an assurance covering invasion does not ban covert actions or an economic blockade or tie our hands completely. We can’t give the impression that Castro is home free.” I don’t think there is any documentation that shows Kennedy considered the pledge null and void. Subsequent documents make it clear that U2 inspection overflights were ongoing to verify missile withdrawal, with Washington concerned a U2 might be downed by a SAM missile. As outlined by the authors, the no-invasion pledge would not have applied in any event, if there was a coup in Cuba and the coup leaders asked for international help. 6. It sounds like a cop-out to me where the authors say they know, but won’t identify, the so-called “coup leader.” The excuse about violating national security laws at this late date is pretty lame. I doubt that anyone would prosecute them. 7. Another graph says they have discovered a Dec. 10, 1963, cable sent to the CIA director, and attributed to a “western diplomat”, reporting “Che Guevara was alleged to be under house arrest for plotting to overthrow Castro.” Having worked at the Miami Herald’s Latin staff for many years, I can’t tell you how many similar unfounded rumors - from such sources - kept popping up, ranging from Castro’s assassination to Guevara’s disappearance. If Guevara had been under house arrest for plotting to overthrow Castro, he never would have been allowed to leave Cuba. 8. They say Cy Vance was the “only man” who knew everything about this plot besides Robert Kennedy, and that Vance “was one of the few military leaders who knew the full scope of C-Day while the plan was active.” The reason that Vance drafted the plan - if he did - is because under a new June 19, 1963, multi-agency covert action program against Cuba, Vance, as Secretary of the Army, was designated by President Kennedy as “the executive agent for the entire federal government in dealing with Cuba [Al Haig, Inner Circles, page 109]. 9. Among others were generals, Max Taylor, Joe Carroll, etc. along with John McCone, Richard Helms, Des Fitzgerald and key field operatives such as David Morales and Dave Phillips. They say there is no evidence that J. Edgar Hoover knew about it. Why should Hoover know? He didn’t know anything about any of the other covert operations against Cuba either, Bay of Pigs, Mongoose, etc. Others likely to have known about such a plan were Joe Califano [Vance’s aide] and Alexander Haig, then an Army colonel, both actively involved in the anti-Castro efforts. Both are still alive, both have written memoirs. I interviewed Haig at his home in West Palm Beach for my own book and we discussed Cuba extensively. He gave no indication such a plan existed. Califano refused several interview requests, but he does deal with Cuba in a chapter in his 2004 book and reiterates again that both he and LBJ think Castro had a hand in the assassination. 10. I find it difficult to believe that if the coup plan as it is described by the authors existed, that we would not have heard of it previously. Several of the people listed above have written memoirs, i.e, Helms, Phillips, etc. and make no mention of it, even though they discuss other such covert operations. The authors also error in saying that the CIA planed to assassinate Castro began in 1959 under Vice President Nixon. I also dispute that the CIA – without telling the Kennedys – was continuing to work with the Mafia on plot against Castro in the fall of 1963. I don’t believe that. And there is certainly no indication of that in either the Church committee report or the CIA IG’S 1967 report on plots to assassinate Castro. In fact, the Church Committee says explicitly that: “the first action against the life of a Cuban leader sponsored by the CIA” occurred in July 1960. 11. It is also odd, that the authors don’t mention Sam Giancani, who was involved with the CIA in assassination plots against Castro. There were two CIA/Mafia plots to assassinate Castro, one originated with Richard Bissell [or Sheffield Edwards, depending on who you believe] in August 1960; Robert Kennedy, according to declassified documents, became aware of it in May 1962 when he was alerted by Hoover that he had evidence Giancani’s girlfriend was sleeping with the President. Bobby then got a briefing from Lawrence Houston, the CIA's general consul, and Sheffield Edwards, the CIA’S security chief on the first Mafia-CIA attempt against Castro. The only other recorded Mafia-CIA attempt to assassinate Castro was underway at the same time – unknown to Bobby Kennedy – this time under the direction of Bill Harvey, head of Task Force W, the CIA component of Operation Mongoose. It was essentially a resurrection of the failed earlier Mafia plot. 12. The authors also mention Operation Amtrunk as being a CIA operation which looked for disaffected Cuban military officers. It was a CIA operation, but one that was forced on the CIA. The operation originated – as shown in declassified documents in my possession - with two Miamians exiled from Cuba, George Volsky. Their codename for it was Operation Leonardo. Logistical support for it was essentially forced on the CIA by the Kennedy White House, through the influence of NYTimes correspondent Tad Szulc, a close friend of Volsky’s. 13. It appears the authors rely heavily on Enrique Ruiz-Williams. While he was very close to Bobby Kennedy, I think he was less important the he led the authors to believe and not nearly as important – or any closer to – Bobby Kennedy than Erneido Oliva [who is not even indexed in the book. Oliva was designated by President Kennedy [an article appeared in the NYTimes] as the representative of the Bay of Pigs Brigade. His liaison at the Pentagon was Al Haig. 14. My own conclusion is that AMWORLD – if that is the codename for the operation – was one among many potential plans to get rid of Castro and that it was “a just in case” plan, that may or may not have been tied in with AMLASH [Rolando Cubela] and perhaps Manuel Artime and Erneido Oliva, both captured at the Bay of Pigs, who became very close to Bobby Kennedy. As noted in my own book [see pages 187-188], and as related to me by Oliva, he and Artime [Ruiz-Williams was not present] met in mid-January 1963 with Bobby Kennedy – less than a month after they had been released from Cuban prisoners - they met Kennedy at his home in Hickory Hill, Virgina. There, according to Oliva, he outlined a new anti-Castro plan to them. Artime would set up guerrilla camps in Central America and Oliva would integrate all the Cubans in the US military into a single unit and the two projects would eventually mesh. 15. In their excerpts summary, the authors express amazement at one point that “a check of newspaper files from the summer and fall of 1963 uncovered a few articles confirming that there had been activity by Kennedy-backed Cuban exiles in Central America at the time.” No wonder, because by then, Artime’s deputy, Rafael Quintero had been traveling back and forth to Costa Rica and Nicaragua arranging to set up the Artime camps with about 300 recruits and it had already started to get attention in the Miami newspapers. 16. I have a series of lengthy declassified documents obtained at the LBJ Library in Austin, prepared in advance of a Dec. 19, 1963, briefing for LBJ Cuba, including a 22-page draft document dated Dec. 15, 1963 that reviews “Current Cuba Policy.” It starts out by noting that: “The bare minimum objective of our police is a Cuba which poses no threat to its neighbors and which is not a Soviet satellite. In moving towards this objective we have rejected the options of unprovoked U.S. military intervention in Cuba and of an effective, total blockade around Cuba – primarily because they would risk another US/USSR confrontation. Instead, we are engaged in a variety of unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral measures, both defensive and offensive, which stop short of these drastic measures.” MY OWN COMMENT: It hardly seems likely that such a memorandum for the president would be written two weeks after an alleged invasion was scheduled without any mention of it. 17. Finally, I close with an email exchange with Oliva on March 28, 2000, as a followup to an interview I had with him earlier that month in Washington. Q – Did anyone else attend the January 1963 meeting at Hickory Hill in addition to Bobby Kennedy, Artime and yourself? A – No one else was present during that particular meeting with Bobby Kennedy. However, the information I provided to you can be easily corroborated. Artime spent more than six million dollars in Central America with its paramilitary operations and I was, until the end of the program, in charge of the military side as Alexander Haig states in his Inner Circle book. Q – What exactly did Bobby Kennedy tell you other than they were going to fund the Artime program with $6 million and create the Cuban unit in the U.S. military? A – That was the main topic of our conversation? Q – Did he at anytime indicate that it would eventually lead to Castro’s overthrow? And, if so, by invasion or a joint operation between the Cuban unit and Artime’s group? A – At that time it was not discussed any invasion of Cuba. Only that the two programs would eventually join forces to facilitate the liberation of Cuba. How? I never asked that, but the commitment on my program was open to the public to see. I have in my possession many clippings of interviews I granted while training at Fort Benning and Fort Sill. In those interviews my expectations and understanding of the training provided by the US Army, Navy and Air Force. Q – You said you finished your plan – requested in September (1963) – for the Cuban unit in December whey they told you it was no longer needed. Can you tell me if the plan contemplated an invasion? A – As stated before, no. Q – What exactly was Artime’s group supposed to accomplish? A – By attacking targets of opportunity [in Cuba], infiltrating personnel to reorganize the underground in Cuba, he would have created the favorable conditions for a larger military action against Castro. All this, of course, after the famous – or infamous – K-K [Kennedy-Khrushchev/NO INVASION] pact.

I have a bit of a problem with those people who think the Kennedys were planning another invasion: At the same time I have no doubt they were hoping to provoke an uprising that would create the conditions for an invasion under Mongoose, or the subsequent covert program - and particularly the Artime autonomous group which operating from Costa Rica and Nicaragua. [Despite what some accounts say was code-named Second Naval Guerrilla, both Rafael Quintero, Artime's deputy, and Sam Halpern, executive assistant to Desmond Fitzgerald, the head of the Cuba task force at the time, both told me they never heard of.] As I recall, Gus Russo's book, Live by The Sword, also claims - as I recall without going back to look for it - that Kennedy was planning another invasion, coming to that conclusion by selectively citing from a declassified document by Robert McNamara.

It is quite obvious to me that the person he refers to is Rolando Cubela, with whom Nestor Sanchez was meeting in Paris on Nov. 22, 1963, to give him a poison pen as part of a coup plot against Castro. I rather doubt the rest of the thesis that the Mafia penetrated the plot and took advantage of this veil of secrecy to kill JFK. That sounds like a real stretch to me. I have a bit of a problem with those people who think the Kennedys were planning another invasion: At the same time I have no doubt they were hoping to provoke an uprising that would create the conditions for an invasion under Mongoose, or the subsequent covert program - and particularly the Artime autonomous group which operating from Costa Rica and Nicaragua. [Despite what some accounts say was code-named Second Naval Guerrilla, both Rafael Quintero, Artime's deputy, and Sam Halpern, executive assistant to Desmond Fitzgerald, the head of the Cuba task force at the time, both told me they never heard of.] As I recall, Gus Russo's book, Live by The Sword, also claims - as I recall without going back to look for it - that Kennedy was planning another invasion, coming to that conclusion by selectively citing from a declassified document by Robert McNamara.

I have just finished reading the Philips piece and generally would agree. I would add - or at least both Esterline and Hawkins were convinced - that the change in landing site a month before the invasion was another significant factor.

I have just finished reading the Philips piece and generally would agree. I would add - or at least both Esterline and Hawkins were convinced - that the change in landing site a month before the invasion was another significant factor.

Regarding the question about the relationship between the CIA and FRD/CRC after the Bay of Pigs, I think it was strained at best. Jose Miro Cardona resigned as head of the CUBAN REVOLUTIONARY COUNCIL in April 1963, accusing the United States of defaming him and "reneging on promises to act against Premier Fidel Castro." [NY Times April 18, 1963.] Up until then, as I recount on page 158 of my book, the council was receiving $137,000 monthly, and another $103,000 monthly was going to "seven other exile groups, including some affiliated with the Council." The money to the Council ended with Miro Cardoza's resignation as its president. I have no knowledge of either Sergio Aracacha Smith or David Ferrie, other than when their names surfaced in the news with the Garrison Investigation. Tony Varona, of course, had a pretty bad reputation and by all accounts had links to the pre-Castro Mafia in Cuba. Russo is quite correct that RFK was closely guiding the anti-Castro campaign after the Bay of Pigs. I think I make that quite clear in my book. RFK was, in effect, acting as the case officer for both Mongoose, and the subsequent effort that began in January 1963 and continued until President Johnson ended it. The only significant CIA funded anti-Castro groups were those headed by Manuel Artime [MRR] and Manolo Ray [JURE]. My comments re Turner were based more on the two books [FISH IS READ and DEADLY SECRETS] he co-authored with Warren Hinckle. It has been several years since I have read Rearview Mirror, as I began research for my book. And since nothing in it appeared to relate to my book, I did not read it carefully. I still have it and will reread it. If you are suggeting that I might have been acting under orders or encouragement from the FBI or CIA anybody else regarding the Warren Commission Report, I can tell you with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that I was not acting under orders or encouragement from anybody, since never in my career have I ever written anything about the Warren Commission Report. 1. I have obtained the document about the JMWave relationship with the Miami Herald and references to Amcarbon2, Amcarbon1, etc., etc. As you noted, it is very confusing but it seems quite clear to me that AMCARBON2 was probably Al Burt, my predecessor as Latin America editor at the Miami Herald. I have no idea who might have bee AMCARBON1 or Identity, 2, etc. even what they refer to. 2. I also have obtained documents that clearly state that I was AMCARBON3, something I was not previously aware of.

1. I have obtained the document about the JMWave relationship with the Miami Herald and references to Amcarbon2, Amcarbon1, etc., etc. As you noted, it is very confusing but it seems quite clear to me that AMCARBON2 was probably Al Burt, my predecessor as Latin America editor at the Miami Herald. I have no idea who might have bee AMCARBON1 or Identity, 2, etc. even what they refer to. 2. I also have obtained documents that clearly state that I was AMCARBON3, something I was not previously aware of.

In answer to your question about being fed stories about those who take on the intelligence community. Never was I fed a story. I have read William Turner's book, Rearview Mirror, but it was quite some years ago. I also have read both books by Hinckle & Turner: "The Fish is Red" and the updated version entitled "Deadly Secrets." The problem I have with them is again - much as Joan Mellen does in her upcoming book "The Failure of Justice," they frequently quote as sources people I knew - or at least was familiar with - during those days who just weren't/aren't credible. This has me curious. Outside of Fonzi, virtually no one has looked into Veciana and explored his credibility. Is it that you suspect there was a Bishop, but that he wasn't Phillips, or that you think Veciana made up the whole story? Since Fonzi was able to match so many of Bishop's supposed travels to those of Phillips, do you suspect Veciana was deliberately implicating Phillips, for his own dark purposes? Regarding Dave Phillips and Antonio Veciana and Maurice Bishop, I finished reading Fonzi's book about three months ago. If you read it carefully, it seems to me, he badgers Veciana - who first denies that Phillips and Maurice Bishop are one and the same - over some period of time into agreeing that Phillips and Bishop are one and the same. I do not personally know Veciana but do know something about Alpha 66, the organization he headed, and similar exile groups, which would do anything to further their own agenda. To the best of my knowledge, Alpha 66 was never funded by the CIA. I also knew Dave Phillips - not well - but well enough to seriously doubt he had any role in the JFK assassination. That is the same view held by other of my journalistic friends who knew him. If I am not mistaken, he won a law suit against Anthony Summers related to the same thing. I have Summers' book on my "to read" list but looking at the index he devotes several pages to Philips, Maurice Bishop and Veciana. Perhaps the reason, apart from Fonzi, has been able to find any evidence to support the Bishop/Phillips story.

To expand further on my comments about anti-Castro Cuban exiles and their possible involvement in Kennedy assassination. There were certainly plenty of militants in the Cuban community during those days capable of killing Kennedy as demonstrated by all the bombings, unsolved exile murders, etc. And I personally, and The Herald as an institution, had anonymous threats of violence from Cuban exiles - both written and telephoned - which were reported to the FBI. I recall one instance of an exile coming in and he and I getting into a heated discussion. Not long after he left, a secretary at The Herald got an anonymous call saying the exiles were going to start bombing Herald delivery trucks unless I were fired. In fact, it is one of the reasons I had, and still have, an unlisted telephone number. As I noted in my previous email, I am not one given to believe in conspiracy theories [having worked to long in journalism to believe everything people tell me] unless I have some convincing evidence to show me otherwise. So far - and again admitting that I had not paid a lot of attention to them until recently when I seem to have become unwittingly involved.

I am not particularly skeptical of anti-Castro Cubans. I am skeptical, however, that any unholy coalition of cia, anti-Castro Cubans and the mob was involved as a group, which seems to be an emerging theory. I would put anti-Castro Cubans and Castro Cubans in a tie behind the mob if it came down to it. Keep in mind, I have not been a student of the JFK assassination - until I seem to have been dragged into it with my book - so I am not aware of all the information, evidence and just plain theories that are out there regarding it. If I were a believer in all the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination, I certainly would put anti-Castro Cubans on the list. At this point, I am not a believer. The one thing I certainly don't believe is that the mysterious Maurice Bishop as identified by Antonio Veciana was Dave Phillips. Also, unrelated, I have been checking and it seems that Tim Gratz may well have been right in noting that I erred on the dates of Johnny Rosselli's disappearance and discovery of his body. I am trying to reconstruct where I came up with the dates in my book because I certainly did not make them out of thin air.

The last thing I wanted to do was have my book become part of the controversy over the JFK assassination, but since it seems to have happened anyway, I have been reading some of the books on the subject, among them so far Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation," The Rockefeller Commission Report on CIA activities; "ZR Rifle: The Plot to Kill Kennedy and Castro," by Claudia Furiati. I had previously read and reviewed for The Herald some years ago, Gus Russo's book: "Live by the Sword," which is probably the best of those cited above. The Furiati book is pure fantasy. The problem I have with the Russo and Fonzi books is that I know - or know by reputation - many of the people cited as sources and find them less than credible. The same is true of what bits and pieces I have seen of Joan Mellen's new book on the Garrison Investigation. Two reporters for major newspapers I won't name who covered the Garrison investigation, thought Garrison was looney. I do have my views on it and, for the most part, I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories I have heard so far. I particularly don't buy what appears to be an emerging consensus among some that it was a conspiracy carried out by the mob, Cuban exiles and the CIA. If it were any of those, I would think it might have been the mob acting alone. That said, I believe the Warren Commission report was flawed, but as I said in the book, but I have seen nothing yet that would convince me otherwise. That said I don't profess to be a student of the assassination.

Re Dick Billings. I do not know him personally. Re Hal Hendrix. As noted before, I knew Hal but was not a close personal friend. I do think I know him well enough, however, to tell you there is no way he would attend your forum. Apart from the fact he is now in his mid-80s and in failing health.

It has been four years since I finished my book so not sure where I got the dates in it but I assume it might have been the Miami Herald files [which I do not have access to now]. But in rereading it, I know the dates in the book are something I read somewhere because I would not have been as precise as to say 11 days after his disappearance Rosselli was found floating in a barrell in Biscayne Bay. When I get some additional time, I will try and find the source for the dates I used.

I don't doubt that Ted Shackley fed information to Hendrix. I do know they were close. Regarding the definition of a CIA "asset," I just don't know. He did win a Pulitzer Prize in 1963 for the Miami News for his reporting on the missile crisis, as you state. I have inquired of a lot of my friends who Hendrix got his information. I think some of it may well have come from the CIA, but a mutual friend who worked for the overt CIA office in Miami told me that he came to them and suggested they talk to a Cuban exile who had just arrived in Miami from Cuba with information about strange goings on in Cuba. The overt officer - which had responsibility for questioning incoming Cuban refugees - talked to the guy Hendrix had suggested and it helped lead to the over flight which identified the missiles. Sometime in this period, The Miami News, which was owned by Cox Newspapers, sold its building and leased space and moved its operation into a new Miami Herald Building on Biscayne Bay, which means that Hendrix would have been working in The Herald Building, but not for the Herald. Hendrix subsequently went to work for Scripts Howard, as you note, and The Herald gave him a desk in the Herald newsroom in exchange for publication rights in Miami to his Scripps Howard material. There is no question that he had great contacts with the CIA in those days, as did Jules Dubois, a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, and Jerry O'Leary [and ex-marine or army colonel], a Washington Start [now defunct] correspondent. I am not exactly sure about his role in the Dominican coup, but do recall that Juan Bosch, in one of his memoirs, basically blamed Hendrix for the coup. I think I remember a picture of some sort when Hendrix comes in from behind a curtain in the National Palace as one of the military coup leaders tells Bosch he is out. Regarding Hendrix, Chile & ITT, I am familiar with it mostly from news accounts but know he [and an ITT colleague named Bob Berrellez, a former AP Latin America correspondent who died several years ago] actively working with the CIA, something that has been well documented. I suspect Powers may be right in his assessment, especially when Hendrix was working with ITT. That is quite clear. I do not know if he was working with Dave Phillips re the Allende coup. If memory serves correctly, Ted Shackley was head of the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division at the time of the 1973 coup. I do know that Hal was extremely bitter about his indictment, feeling that he was working to oust Allende in collaboration with the CIA in the best interests of the US government. Unfortunately, in his memoirs, Shackley barely mentions Chile, except to say he had nothing to do with Allende's death. [You might be interested to know that The Herald within the past week carried a story from information contained in a new book by a British author - name I don't remember - citing newly available KGB documents, saying that the KGB funnelled some $400,000 plus to Allende]. Now, regarding AMCARBON, The Herald contact with CIA etc. From your description, I suspect that AMCARBON1 may have been Al Burt, my predecessor at The Herald. He did begin work about 1957 on the Herald city desk, then became Latin America editor in the early 1960s, when the Herald decided it needed to set up way to deal with all the crazy Cuban exiles coming in and talking to any reporter they could find, then such stories would get in the paper. It was before my time, but I am told [and I give this to you as hearsay and appreciate it if you do not post it on the internet] that the way The Herald and the CIA contact is as follows: Sometime after he had been named Latin America editor, Al Burt, my predecessor was having lunch with George Beebe, the Miami Herald's then managing editor - which was the top newsroom job at the time sometime in the early 1960s [it would had to have been in early 1962 after Shackley became chief of JMWave]. Also lunching in the same restaurant at the time were Bill Pawley and Shackley. Pawley and Beebe were good friends and Pawley came to Beebe and said he was having lunch with someone The Herald should be in touch with. The result was that Al Burt established a connection with Shackley. In Shackley's book he brags that he has "recruited" Al Burt. I am inclined to doubt that and Burt denies it. I think there may be a matter of semantics involved, but I don't know. Shackley was known to embellish things to further his advancement. That is why I say there may be a matter of semantics involved. I joined The Herald's Latin America staff in early 1964, when Al Burt was still The Herald's Latin America editor. He got shot accidentally and badly injured by the Marines during the April 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic. He recovered somewhat but left The Herald sometime that year. He introduced me to Shackley's successor, John Dimmer in June - or possibly July - of 1965, the first CIA person I had contact with in my life. That is why I say it is important for me to know what the date of the AMCARBON document is.

I don't doubt that Ted Shackley fed information to Hendrix. I do know they were close. Regarding the definition of a CIA "asset," I just don't know. He did win a Pulitzer Prize in 1963 for the Miami News for his reporting on the missile crisis, as you state. I have inquired of a lot of my friends who Hendrix got his information. I think some of it may well have come from the CIA, but a mutual friend who worked for the overt CIA office in Miami told me that he came to them and suggested they talk to a Cuban exile who had just arrived in Miami from Cuba with information about strange goings on in Cuba. The overt officer - which had responsibility for questioning incoming Cuban refugees - talked to the guy Hendrix had suggested and it helped lead to the over flight which identified the missiles. Sometime in this period, The Miami News, which was owned by Cox Newspapers, sold its building and leased space and moved its operation into a new Miami Herald Building on Biscayne Bay, which means that Hendrix would have been working in The Herald Building, but not for the Herald. Hendrix subsequently went to work for Scripts Howard, as you note, and The Herald gave him a desk in the Herald newsroom in exchange for publication rights in Miami to his Scripps Howard material. There is no question that he had great contacts with the CIA in those days, as did Jules Dubois, a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, and Jerry O'Leary [and ex-marine or army colonel], a Washington Start [now defunct] correspondent. I am not exactly sure about his role in the Dominican coup, but do recall that Juan Bosch, in one of his memoirs, basically blamed Hendrix for the coup. I think I remember a picture of some sort when Hendrix comes in from behind a curtain in the National Palace as one of the military coup leaders tells Bosch he is out. Regarding Hendrix, Chile & ITT, I am familiar with it mostly from news accounts but know he [and an ITT colleague named Bob Berrellez, a former AP Latin America correspondent who died several years ago] actively working with the CIA, something that has been well documented. I suspect Powers may be right in his assessment, especially when Hendrix was working with ITT. That is quite clear. I do not know if he was working with Dave Phillips re the Allende coup. If memory serves correctly, Ted Shackley was head of the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division at the time of the 1973 coup. I do know that Hal was extremely bitter about his indictment, feeling that he was working to oust Allende in collaboration with the CIA in the best interests of the US government. Unfortunately, in his memoirs, Shackley barely mentions Chile, except to say he had nothing to do with Allende's death. [You might be interested to know that The Herald within the past week carried a story from information contained in a new book by a British author - name I don't remember - citing newly available KGB documents, saying that the KGB funnelled some $400,000 plus to Allende]. Now, regarding AMCARBON, The Herald contact with CIA etc. From your description, I suspect that AMCARBON1 may have been Al Burt, my predecessor at The Herald. He did begin work about 1957 on the Herald city desk, then became Latin America editor in the early 1960s, when the Herald decided it needed to set up way to deal with all the crazy Cuban exiles coming in and talking to any reporter they could find, then such stories would get in the paper. It was before my time, but I am told [and I give this to you as hearsay and appreciate it if you do not post it on the internet] that the way The Herald and the CIA contact is as follows: Sometime after he had been named Latin America editor, Al Burt, my predecessor was having lunch with George Beebe, the Miami Herald's then managing editor - which was the top newsroom job at the time sometime in the early 1960s [it would had to have been in early 1962 after Shackley became chief of JMWave]. Also lunching in the same restaurant at the time were Bill Pawley and Shackley. Pawley and Beebe were good friends and Pawley came to Beebe and said he was having lunch with someone The Herald should be in touch with. The result was that Al Burt established a connection with Shackley. In Shackley's book he brags that he has "recruited" Al Burt. I am inclined to doubt that and Burt denies it. I think there may be a matter of semantics involved, but I don't know. Shackley was known to embellish things to further his advancement. That is why I say there may be a matter of semantics involved. I joined The Herald's Latin America staff in early 1964, when Al Burt was still The Herald's Latin America editor. He got shot accidentally and badly injured by the Marines during the April 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic. He recovered somewhat but left The Herald sometime that year. He introduced me to Shackley's successor, John Dimmer in June - or possibly July - of 1965, the first CIA person I had contact with in my life. That is why I say it is important for me to know what the date of the AMCARBON document is.

I did not join the Miami Herald Latin America staff until early 1964. As I say in the preface to my book, I met - at least knowingly - my first CIA agent sometime in mid-summer 1965. His name was John Dimmer [at least that is what he was introduced to me as] and he took over JMWave after Ted Shackley left [i never met Shackley until 1999, well after he retired from the Agency when I interviewed him a couple of times in Washington, D.C. for my book.]. I subsequently met Dimmer's successor, again as I say in the preface to my book, Paul Henzie and then Jake Esterline. I am well aware of the Taylor Branch/George Crile article, which is cited in my bibliography. As for what they attribute to an anonymous CIA agent regarding The Miami Herald, that related to a period before I began covering Latin America. I do know, again as I say in the preface to my book, that in the 1960s and early 1970s, it was very common for journalists covering foreign affairs to have contact with CIA officials, just as it was for journalists to have contact with the political officers in American Embassies and desk officers at the state department. That all changed in the early 1970s when the stories broke about CIA involvement with the international student movement, Watergate, Vietnam, etc. Journalists did not want to be associated with the CIA and the CIA did not want to be tangled up with journalists. My last known contact [to me at least] with an active CIA agent was sometime in the early 1970s. I also know that the Miami Herald did have contact with Ted Shackley, before my time. David Corn, in his book the Blond Ghost, re Ted Shackley, quotes from a declassified document saying that my predecessor, Al Burt [who was shot accidentally by US Marines at a checkpoint in the 1965 Dominican intervention] signed by Shackley saying he had "recruited" Al Burt. I doubt that is true, but Burt did have contact with the JMWAVE Station and management at the Miami Herald was well aware of it, just as they were well of my contact with John Dimmer, Paul Henzie and Jake Esterline. I am sure my name shows up in some declassified CIA documents as well but I have never bothered to put in a FOIA request since I do not consider anything I did as violating an journalist ethic. It was then considered quite routine. The same was true - and particularly - for Tad Szulc, of the New York Times and was actively involved in a covert operation called Operation Amtrunk [also known as Operation Leonardo] designed to encourage Cuban military officers to defect or revolt. At the same time, [again as I note in my book] George Volsky, the NY Times stringer in Miami, was working not only for the NYTimes but also was employed by the US Information Agency in Miami [directed then by Paul Bethel] and was one of those involved in Amtrunk. I am sure what Crile and Branch say about the Miami Herald could well apply at that time to any major US newspaper that covered foreign affairs. I don't think the CIA was using the Miami Herald during that period any more than The Miami Herald was using the CIA. Re Hendrix, I do know Hal, although as a foreign reporter I was at least a half generation behind him. We were friendly but now close. As you I don't if he was a CIA "asset," and in fact not quite sure what that means. I do know that he had close ties to the Agency and to Shackley. I also think the quote in the Crile/Branch article from the anonymous CIA official was a bit overstated, at least from my experience in later years.

I did not join the Miami Herald Latin America staff until early 1964. As I say in the preface to my book, I met - at least knowingly - my first CIA agent sometime in mid-summer 1965. His name was John Dimmer [at least that is what he was introduced to me as] and he took over JMWave after Ted Shackley left [i never met Shackley until 1999, well after he retired from the Agency when I interviewed him a couple of times in Washington, D.C. for my book.]. I subsequently met Dimmer's successor, again as I say in the preface to my book, Paul Henzie and then Jake Esterline. I am well aware of the Taylor Branch/George Crile article, which is cited in my bibliography. As for what they attribute to an anonymous CIA agent regarding The Miami Herald, that related to a period before I began covering Latin America. I do know, again as I say in the preface to my book, that in the 1960s and early 1970s, it was very common for journalists covering foreign affairs to have contact with CIA officials, just as it was for journalists to have contact with the political officers in American Embassies and desk officers at the state department. That all changed in the early 1970s when the stories broke about CIA involvement with the international student movement, Watergate, Vietnam, etc. Journalists did not want to be associated with the CIA and the CIA did not want to be tangled up with journalists. My last known contact [to me at least] with an active CIA agent was sometime in the early 1970s. I also know that the Miami Herald did have contact with Ted Shackley, before my time. David Corn, in his book the Blond Ghost, re Ted Shackley, quotes from a declassified document saying that my predecessor, Al Burt [who was shot accidentally by US Marines at a checkpoint in the 1965 Dominican intervention] signed by Shackley saying he had "recruited" Al Burt. I doubt that is true, but Burt did have contact with the JMWAVE Station and management at the Miami Herald was well aware of it, just as they were well of my contact with John Dimmer, Paul Henzie and Jake Esterline. I am sure my name shows up in some declassified CIA documents as well but I have never bothered to put in a FOIA request since I do not consider anything I did as violating an journalist ethic. It was then considered quite routine. The same was true - and particularly - for Tad Szulc, of the New York Times and was actively involved in a covert operation called Operation Amtrunk [also known as Operation Leonardo] designed to encourage Cuban military officers to defect or revolt. At the same time, [again as I note in my book] George Volsky, the NY Times stringer in Miami, was working not only for the NYTimes but also was employed by the US Information Agency in Miami [directed then by Paul Bethel] and was one of those involved in Amtrunk. I am sure what Crile and Branch say about the Miami Herald could well apply at that time to any major US newspaper that covered foreign affairs. I don't think the CIA was using the Miami Herald during that period any more than The Miami Herald was using the CIA. Re Hendrix, I do know Hal, although as a foreign reporter I was at least a half generation behind him. We were friendly but now close. As you I don't if he was a CIA "asset," and in fact not quite sure what that means. I do know that he had close ties to the Agency and to Shackley. I also think the quote in the Crile/Branch article from the anonymous CIA official was a bit overstated, at least from my experience in later years.