Nathaniel Heidenheimer

QUOTE(John Simkin @ Jul 24 2007, 06:56 PM) This is what Don Bohning just said to me in a series of emails: (1) Actually, your friends Hinckle and Turner identify Campbell as assistant station chief in their book Deadly Secrets. I should have known better than to rely on them. (2) I might note also that Talbot identified Richard Bissell as head of the CIA operation that overthrew Arbenz when Bissell himself says in his memoirs that wasn't so. And your website also says Morales was in Bolivia when Guevara was killed in 1965 when it was really 1967 and when Larry Sternfield, the CIA station chief there at the time, says he wasn't even in Bolivia when Guevara was killed. Given the other errors in Talbot's book, I am not sure that he and Morley are correct about Campbell either. (3) Just went back and looked at the Fish is Red, the earlier version of Deadly Secrets, by Hinckle and Turner, and Campbell is identified in there as the deputy station chief. And given the number of errors of fact in Talbot's book, I am not convinced that he and Morley are right about Campbell either. Besides, Mel Ayton knocked down the JFK assassination story long before Talbot and Morley did. In fact, Morley called me before he and Talbot came to Miami and asked how to get in touch with Manny Chavez, well after Ayton's article on him already had appeared.. I put he and Tlbot in contact with Cavez. I had given Chavez and Gayston Lynch's phone number to Ayton weeks before Talbot and Morley. Ayton had sent enhanced pictures of Morales to Chavez and to Lynch. Chavez didn't know Campbell but Lynch did and he said the pictures of neither Morales nor Campbell. It is true that the Talbot and Morley piece took the thing a bit further but the story had been descredited well before the one they wrote, which was somewhat anti-climatic coming weeks later when the story already had been discredited by Ayton. QUOTE(John Simkin @ Jul 24 2007, 10:05 PM) A couple more emails from Don Bohning: (4) Having just looked through the two books by Bradley Ayers, the Zenith Secret and the War that Never Was, it would seem that Talbot and Morley have gotten mixed up on Gordon Campbell. Ayers, according to his books, did not join JMWAVE until 1963 and on page 39 of the Zenith Secret he identifies Campbell as the deputy chief of station. Morley and Talbot say Campbell died in 1962. Who do you believe? Looks to me like another Talbot error. I would believe Ayers before I would believe Talbot. I think they identified the wrong Gordon Campbell. (5) Talbot and Morley also say in a footnote that David Rabern was indentified as a CIA operations officer. No one around here ever heard of David Rabern and, according to Ayers, he was a private investigator in Arizona. In his review of my book, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Don Bohning asserts that I take a “starry-eyed” view of the Kennedys. But Bohning comes to this conclusion because he has chosen to view this historical chapter through his own prism – that of his CIA sources. In the interests of full disclosure, Bohning – or Washington Decoded editor Max Holland – had a duty to reveal that Bohning was named in declassified CIA documents as one of the Miami journalists whom the CIA regarded as an agency asset in the 1960s. But neither Bohning, nor Holland in his editor’s note, disclosed this pertinent information. A CIA memo dated June 5, 1968 states that Bohning was known within the agency as AMCARBON 3 -- AMCARBON was the cryptonym that the CIA used to identify friendly reporters and editors who covered Cuba. (AMCARBON 1 was Bohning’s colleague at the Miami Herald, Latin America editor Al Burt.) According to the agency memo, which dealt with New Orleans prosecutor Jim Garrison’s investigation of the Kennedy assassination, Bohning passed along information about the Garrison probe to the CIA. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=2) A follow-up agency memo, dated June 14, revealed that “Bohning was granted a Provisional Security Approval on 21 August 1967 and a Covert Security Approval on 14 November 1967 for use as a confidential informant.” http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1 A declassified CIA memo dated April 9, 1964 explained that the CIA’s covert media campaign in Miami aimed “to work out a relationship with [south Florida] news media which would insure that they did not turn the publicity spotlight on those [CIA] activities in South Florida which might come to their attention...and give [the CIA’s Miami station] an outlet into the press which could be used for surfacing certain select propaganda items.” While researching my book, I contacted Bohning to ask him about his reported ties to the CIA. Was he indeed AMCARBON 3? “I still do not know but… it is possible,” Bohning replied in one of a series of amicable e-mails and phone calls we exchanged. “There were several people in the Herald newsroom during the 1960s who had contact with the CIA station chief in Miami.” Bohning took pains to explain that he was not a paid functionary of the CIA, insisting he was simply a dutiful reporter working every source he could as he went about his job. And, as I wrote back to him, I’m fully aware that agency officials – looking to score bureaucratic points with their superiors – could sometimes make empty boasts that they had certain journalists in their pocket. I also told him that I understood that many journalists, particularly in those Cold War days, thought it was permissible to swap information with intelligence sources. But in evaluating a journalist’s credibility, it is important for readers to know of these cozy government relationships. The fact that Bohning was given a CIA code as an agency asset and was identified as an agency informant is a relevant piece of information that the readers of Washington Decoded have a right to know. Even more relevant is that, over the years, Bohning’s journalism has consistently reflected his intelligence sources’ points of view, with little or no critical perspective. Bohning’s book, The Castro Obsession, is essentially the CIA’s one-dimensional view of that historical drama, pure and simple, down to the agency’s self-serving claim that it was the Kennedys’ fanaticism that drove the spy outfit to take extreme measures against the Castro regime. Bohning’s decision to invoke former CIA director and convicted xxxx Richard Helms’ conversation with Henry Kissinger, another master of deceit, as proof that Robert Kennedy was behind the Castro plots speaks for itself. In Bohning’s eagerness to shine the best possible light on the CIA, he goes as far as to attempt to exonerate David Morales – a notorious CIA agent whose hard-drinking and violent ways alienated him not only from many of his colleagues but from his own family, as I discovered in my research. Among my “thin” sources on Morales were not only those who worked and lived with him, but his attorney, who told more than one reporter that Morales implicated himself in the assassinations of both Kennedy brothers. In discussing my “tendentious” view of the CIA’s dissembling on the Bay of Pigs operation, Bohning seeks to exculpate disgraced covert operations chief Richard Bissell, the architect of the fiasco. Bohning writes that he doubts Bissell lied to JFK about the doomed plan’s chances for success. And yet this is precisely the way that the Miami Herald, Bohning’s own newspaper, covered the story when the CIA’s internal history of the Bay of Pigs was finally released in August 2005. “Bissell owed it to JFK to tell him” the truth about the Bay of Pigs plan, the newspaper quoted a historian who had studied the CIA documents. But “there is no evidence that he did.” Bohning too was quoted in the Herald article, and his view of Bissell was decidedly less trusting than it is in his review of my book. “Bissell seems to have had a habit of not telling people things they needed to know,” Bohning told the Herald. Bohning’s pro-CIA bias also compels him to brush aside former Congressional investigator Gaeton Fonzi’ strong suspicions of a CIA involvement in the assassination. It is true that the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which found evidence of a conspiracy in its 1979 report, did not include the CIA in its list of suspects. But Bohning stops conveniently short of what has happened in ensuing years. After Washington Post journalist Jefferson Morley revealed that the CIA’s liaison with the committee, a veteran agent named George Joannides, had withheld information about his own connection to Lee Harvey Oswald from the committee and undermined its investigation in other ways, a furious G. Robert Blakey, former chief counsel of the committee, retracted his earlier statement that the agency had fully cooperated with the Congressional investigation. Instead, said Blakey, the CIA was guilty of obstruction of justice. Blakey told me, as I reported in my book, that he now believes that Mafia-linked “rogue” intelligence agents might have been involved in the assassination. In short, these developments have bolstered Fonzi’s earlier suspicions. Bohning criticizes me for accepting the credibility of a source named Angelo Murgado, a Bay of Pigs veteran aligned with the Cuban exile leader Manuel Artime – and as Bohing concedes, a minor figure in my book. But Bohning provides no evidence that Murgado’s story about investigating suspicious activity in the Cuban exile world for Bobby Kennedy is false. The exile community is known for its flamboyant internal disputes. Bohning solicits comments about Murgado from his own corners of this world and chooses to accept their validity. But many of the sources in the anti-Castro movement that Bohning has cultivated over the years have their own dubious pasts and shady agendas. I was forthright with my readers about Murgado’s drawbacks as a source, including his criminal record, which Bohning presents as if he’s revealing it for the first time. I tried to put Murgado’s statements in their proper context and allow readers to make their own conclusion. But Bohning is rarely as transparent about his sources and their motivations in his Cuba reporting. Bohning is equally selective in rejecting Howard Hunt’s late-hour confessions about Dallas. Until the final years of his life, Hunt – a CIA veteran of the anti-Castro wars and the notorious ringleader of the Watergate burglary team – took a view of the Kennedy assassination that was espoused within agency circles in his day, i.e., that JFK was the victim of a Havana and Moscow-connected plot. This Communist plot theory of the assassination was rejected by the Warren Commission (whose work Bohning continues to find persuasive), as well as investigators for the Church Committee and the House Assassinations Committee, as well as most reputable researchers. But Hunt’s unfounded charges about a Communist conspiracy never landed him in hot water with critics like Bohning. It was only when Hunt broke ranks to implicate members of the CIA – and himself – in the crime that Bohning felt compelled to heatedly question his credibility. Unlike his earlier charges, Hunt’s allegations of a CIA connection to Dallas were based on what he claimed was first-hand, eyewitness evidence. Hunt told his son, St. John, that he was invited to a meeting at a CIA safe house in Miami where the plot to kill Kennedy was discussed, and he implicated himself in the plot as a “benchwarmer.” It is true that during his career, Hunt did indeed act as a CIA disinformation specialist, and he might have had inexplicably devious reasons for fingering former colleagues like Morales, as well as himself, in the crime. And his son, St. John, did indeed once lead a roguish, drug-fueled life, as he has freely told the press and as I reported in my book. But I have seen the confessional notes written in the senior Hunt’s own hand, and have heard his guarded confessions on tape – as have other journalists. The authenticity of this material is undisputed. So, despite his colorful past, St. John’s character is not the central issue here. It’s the material that his father himself left behind as his last will and testament. Bohning has no reason to dismiss Howard Hunt’s sensational allegations out of hand – other than his blind faith in CIA sources who still stick to the party line on Dallas. While Hunt’s confessions are clearly not the definitive word on the subject, they are at least worthy of further investigation on the part of serious, independent journalists and researchers. But when it comes to the subject of the CIA’s secret war on Cuba – an operation that Robert Kennedy, among other knowledgeable insiders, believed was the source of the assassination plot against his brother – Don Bohning is an obviously partisan chronicler. Again and again Bohning has chosen to present the CIA in the most flattering light and its critics in the most negative. I accept Bohning’s insistence that he was not a CIA stooge. But he should stop acting like one. -------------- John and David: very interesting. Perhaps Mr. Bohning would care to answer directly on the forum? Or does he prefer the Langley Circle to the Public Sphere? On the topic of the Operation Mockingbird and its relation to the Bay of Pigs, I discovered these paragraphs while rereading Larry Hancock's Someone Would have Talked. They concern another Miami journalist considered close to the CIA at the time, Hal Hendrix, who later went on to win a Pulitzer Prize because for his Bay of Pigs coverage. Consider the following example of CIA influence in our domestic media. This quotes are taken from Larry Hancock's recent book Someone Would Have Talked. They concern a reporter,Hal Hendrix, who would later go on to win the Pulitzer prize. In my interpretation it suggests that cooperation with the CIA had a lot to do with his winning this prize, although I an NOT suggesting that they somehow finagled the vote. Its a bit more subtle. The example is from around the time of the Bay of Pigs Invasion. I think this example has tremendous relevance for any discussion of the US Corporate Media today. People like to immediately create a character of CIA influence in order to dismiss it. This image of direct "do this do that" control is often presented as a straw dog, to be dismissed, and hence prevent a deeper reading. ----------------- David Phillips relates one of his propaganda efforts in support of the Bay of Pigs invasion. He was tasked with having the world conclude that the planes bombing Cuban airstrips were actually defectors from the Cuban Air Force who used the planes to attack their own installations. Phillips calls it an incredible charade. He remarked that when specially prepared and marked B-26's were flown into Miami (carefully peppered with machine gun bullets to make it look as if they had been under fire in the bombing raids),, one Miami newsman noted that one of the planes had its machine guns covered with tape. The CIA planes based in Nicaragua had their barrels covered to keep out dust. But the first stories out of FLorida still generally accepted the deception that Castro pilots had blasted their own air force ina blow against Castro before defecting! This seems to be another characteristic Phillips' understatement. He omits the fact that reporters had also noticed that the planes bomb racks were corroded and that the Plexiglas noses were clear rather than opaque as were those on Castro's planes. In reality, Phillips had an ace in the hole with the Miami media community, a hole card that he definitely did not describe. The extent of his influence and disinformation stands out in an April 15, 1961 Miami News article by Hal Hendrix, which authoritatively stated: It has been clearly established now that there will be no mass invasion against Cuba by the anti-Castro forces gathered at bases in Central America and this country. The News has stated this for several months. It certainly appears that Phillips had developed his own network of media contacts that were well positioned to ensure the CIA version of Cuban events got maximum media coverage. The core of his captive media network appears to have been Hal Hendrix, his pre-invasion pitfall was eclipsed by the fact that his "coverage of the Bay of Pigs invasion seemed deeper and more detailed than [that of] any other journalist". Hendrix went on to garner a Pulitzer for his very well informed reporting of the Cuban Missile Crisis and by 1963 was covering Latin America for the Scripps-Howard News Service. We now know that Hendrix's inside information originated with the CIA (pp. 170-171, Someone Would Have Talked, Larry Hancock) http://www.amazon.com/Someone-Would-Have-T...n/dp/0977465713 http://www.larry-hancock.com/exhibits.html ------------------- Was Hendrix's mistake a pitfall or part of a broader deal made with the sources that later provided such a boost for his career?

Today I was reading from John Prados Bio of William Colby, Lost Crusade; it also made me think about Harvey in Rome. Funny thing how many books emphasise him coming back to the US for some visits with Rosselli. But what I read today for the first time that Rome was may not have been banishment but an important node in the conspiracy. ( In some ways like Helms in Iran after 1973, working with Shak in Langley behind 2 directors' backs?) Prados emphasises that when Colby got to Italy, in 1956? he took a different approach than had Angleton when he was in Rome. He says that Angleton still had his finger in the pie and worked with Ambassador Clare Booth Luce to support far right groups (he doesn't mention P2, but could be implying it, so as not to become vulgar). Prados depicts Colby as favoring an approach to stregnthen the center in a coalition with some of the socialists, if they left thier coalition with the Italian communists. He also says that Colby found several instances of Angleton having direct contact with old associates in Italy, and these reports "were bing pouched direct to Washington, outside embasy and even CIA channels. That was a typical Angleton touch" (p. 57) Might this direct line to Angleton have been used in some way when Harvey was sent to Rome in January 1963? Would it have been useful somehow in maintaing compartmentalization, but a partial convergence of the Oswald dangle and the CIA's Castro assassination plan? Prados suggests that the dispute between Angleton and Colby had some long running implications: There is no evidence that COlby and Angleton began to war against each other at this stage, but there would be other times that they crossed swords. A growing antipathy betweeen Colby and Angleton would ahve repercussions in Southeast Asia and Washington. Moreover, the view on counteitelligence that Colby developed, whih later had a striong impacto on CIA practice, were conditioned by his dislike for Angleton. Those sore began to fester in Rome, where not everything was la dolce vita (p. 57

Great; now The Nation readers can comfortably back Barack 'N Bomb 'Ems Really Strategic Nukes into Waziristan while the CIA and ISI trade seasons of The Wire.

Tim I think that point could be made, but within an overall context of 1. solidly emphaisizing LHO's intelligence links; while pointing out the WC denied them 2. pointing out Ruby's organized crime links while pointing out the WC deneid them. I think the possiblity of them meeting might be mentioned at the end of these two sections, but not as the main point of emphasis. I also think there has to be a clear, crisp paragraph of how this matters FOR THE WORLD OF TODAY. We have to rescue the case from the category of trivial pursuit, where it has been relagated by the Corporate Medcia. I think the line of continutity here involved increased centralized power, increaing lack of checks and balances, and a complete absence of sunshine-- rumored to be the best disinfectant.

Phil that IS the ad-- Nathaniel (It would have taken me about 8 hours to type it)

On the subject of Operation Chaos, Roger Morris, in Partners in Power, writes that LBJ had issued the following precise instructions regarding the student anti- war movement: "Get me some commie money and organizers behind this student xxxx". Morris' sources seem to be divided on whether or not BILL CLINTON was recruited as an informant in the CIA's Operation Chaos: One more CIA retiree would recall going through archives of Operation Chaos at the Langley Headquarters--part of an agency purge amid the looming congressional investigations of the mid-1970s-- and seeing Bill Clintonlisted, alnogn with others, as a former imformant who had gone on to run for or be elected toa political office of some import, in Clinton's case attorney eneral of Arkansas. "He was there in the records,' the former agent said, " with a special designation," Still another CIA source contended that part of Clinton' arrangement a informer had been further insurance against the draft. "He knew he was safe, you see, evein if he got a lattery number not high enough and even if the ROTC thing fell through for some reason,' the source said," because the Company could get him a deferment if it had to, and it was done all the time Several CIA sources would agree nearly a quarter century after the events that there had indeed been several informants among the events Americans gathered at British Universities at the end of the 1960s, young men who wnet onto prominance if not the Oval Office. "Lets just say that some high today in the USG began thier official careers as snitches against the anti-war movement. "Close to Bill Clinton were informants with a more formal relationsip than occasional sources,' said another ex-case-officer. "I can't and won't ever tell you names, but you'd sure recognize them if I did' (p. 104). Roger Morris was on the NSC under both Johnson and Nixon, although he resigned in protest over the the Vietnam War. He wrote a great book with his wife, Sally Denton about Las Vegas and the CIA called The Money and the Power. He's currently writing a book about the CIA in the Middle East. I think he would be a great addition to the forum.

My wife has one. If we still dont have one I could ask her to picture one later toninight, but wont that be impossible to read? I'm not the most hi-tech of middle-aged organisms!

I have the ad, but don't own a scanner, just in case anyone thinks I'm acting in an undemocratic manner.

Now THAT is a freakin' brilliant idea. I second the nomination of Larry Hancock. How many thousands of dollars do we need? (I'm sure we can't afford as much space as Kuntzler.) ---------------- I third the motion. I would be willing to put up some some of my misbegotten funds towards such an ad. I think it should have concrete recomendations on how people new to the issue can learn more. That would be time and money well spent! Also, if there was a reference to the forum, memebership would quadruple by teatime.

John, the number given in the ad is 202- 484-0330 I will try calling later. No reason why many people can't call.

Peter Lemkin wrote: I'd suggest those on the side of seeing the seedier side of the secret government [for lack of a better term] start their own such website and fight to maintain control. ---------------- I'm not sure if this is the issue. What bothers the CIA et. al. is NOT THAT ANOTHER SITE EXISTS. The question I think they care more about is does that website have critical mass to control the narrative of current events. If not it might actually be helping the powerful by sowing disagreement about the causes of an event like 9/11 of 11/22, and thus preventing the consolidation of a counter-narrative unified enough to challenge the Official History. The Corporate Media have shown a new ability to take the net seriously. Witness the way CNN has for two years or so had net reporters, who direct viewers to sites they consider legitimate. Time Magazine and the NYT regularly have articles on top new websites, thereby beulding synergy between Corporate Media and favored branches of the net. The net is not growing organically anymore: rather it is being effected by this Hothouse influence of the Corporate Media. Other sites that don't reach out are contributing to thier own marginalization. To look at the net AS A WHOLE as the opposite of the mainstream corporate media is a dangerous oversimplification that doesn't take into consideration the latest countermoves by Corporate Media. Not accusing you of this, just postulatin.

Hi, everyone Im writing form the Burned Over Region, as the only evangelical on the Forum. What I mean by this is I am interested in promoting the forum and good writing about the assassination to a wider-- and especially younger audience-- so that the forum does not become isolated on the web, and so that books like Legacy of Ashes-- currently #15 on best seller, after being in the top fifty for more than two weeks in a row, (thats hundreds of thousands of copies?)-- do not end up winning the psyop battles. As I mentioned before, Legacy is far more dangerous than Bug's book because people will actually read it, and it is so anti-Kennedy that it would make S. Hersh blush. WHY I THINK THIS COULD WORK When Legacy came out, I wrote a review on Amazon, using a NEW FEATURE that could click to other books sold by Amazon. By putting Larry Hancock's book and also David Talbot's I watched as their books moved up the sales list. A SCEPTIC MIGHT SAY " well you cant really go by amazon sales numbers, as they are constantly roller coasting, and besides a sale of 3 books in half an hour could be 60,000 ranks. I have been monitoring sales of SWHT for about two weeks. TRUE, is sometimes goes back up to 80,000 but I have been struck by how often it has stayed in the 20,000 range over the last ten days. (I have been checking about five times a day, as a means of seeing if this idea will work for other books too) GET THIS 1) When I added a second click on a HIGHLY TRAFFICKED left-liberal (an important area target in my view) site called Common Dreams, plus a few other places , it went up higher ( again not just base on a small number of observations) 2) The highest Ashes has ever been is 15 (today) thanks to its unrelenting promotion-- it is getting to the level of Case Closed. So I clicked SWHT and today it was up to 7,335! Note that is only being referenced in 1 REVIEW --but it is tied to a VERY HIGH FLYING KITE ( ie a lot more people will see it because its tied to a very popular book right now, that a lot of people will click on. IMAGINE: Imagine what a couple of other references to SWHT could do if they are PLACED STRATEGICALLY in terms of heavily visited sites and/or topically proximate sites! I think top 1,000 is absolutely doable! Perhaps higher. How long did Larry work on his book? Yes It sold well but not well enough, in my opinion. This is obviously not because of the quality of the work but has a lot more to do with certain authors having a much higher propensity to appear on Charlie Rose than others! We have to do our part in making this great research available to NOT JUST A COURT but also THE REAL COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. (I know many will say, that's already been won, but I think their are important degrees and gradations of conviction in this court, that can lead to either action or passsivity!) Perhaps the two courts are not unconnected-- witness the pressure from Stone's film leading to the documents releases of the 1990s. I encourage all members and visitors who have read SWHT to post around! If you would like to you can post what you have done here so that we can get an overall sense of how this strategy works. Many say this is a site for researchers. Great, but if the research never makes it out beyond a aging narrow circle then what was all the work for.....? Crtiics are praising Legacy of Ashes for its sources! Can you imagine having people compare these sources to the sources on Larry Hancock's site? Its the kind of comparision that just might cause cognitive dissonance, even in frozen minds of the loyal Times readers. By the way, to avoid confusion for further research, I have never really had the nickname El Indio, and I am not in the CIA, because they have extremely protestant spelling tests.

I want to bring together two quotes about the FPCC which have made me curious as to the degree of infiltration of the FPCC, and also will hopefully clarify some questions about how compartmentalization worked within the CIA. On page 6 and 7 of his fascinating article on John Hay Whitne Greg Parker offers some strong circumstatial evidence supporting the possiblitity that FPCC may have been a CIA operation from its inception in 1960. It is well worth looking at these pages. http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index....mp;limitstart=5 Next, we jump to page 165 of Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked (2nd Ed) The second example further shows the scope of Phillips' interests and activities. During 1961 the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) was viewed by the CIA and FBI as a major vehicle for Communist advocacy, not only in the United States, but also in Latin America. The FPCC was also suspected of being an infiltration channel due to its sponsorship and advocacy of student travel to and from Cuba. In what appears to have been equal parts counter-intelligence and propaganda, the CIA initiated a program to dangle a student into the FPCC, encouraging the student to use the cover of being intereste instarting a new FPCC chapter. This action occurred whithin the three months before the Bay of Pigs It involved Western Hemisphere and CIA Security Office use of an Agency employee who knew Court Wood, a student recently returned from Cuba. Conveniently, this employee worked for WH/4 and the WH man supervising the operation was Phillips. In fact, it appears that at this early stage, Phillips was in charge of both counter-intelligence and propaganda efforts targeting the FPCC, successfully manipulating a young man who was in the process of organizing an FPCC chapter and tracking activities to illegally travel to and from Cuba. My questions here concern: 1) To just what extent the FPCC was CIA. Sure there may have been some activists, but is it accurate at this point to describe it as ONLY partly controlled or infiltrated by the CIA? 2) How does the structure of CIA compartmentalization effect Phillip's dealings with the FPCC? Am I correct in interpreting from Larry's description of Phillips that he had contact with the FPCC not only for two different purposes BUT VIA TWO DIFFERENT OSTENSIBLY COMPARTMENTALIZED DEPARTMENTS OF THE CIA? 3) Did Phillips contact the FPCC for both a) counter-inteligence and propaganda functions from the same office in Miami? (Wasn't there an a second CIA office-- one independent of JM-WAVE, and associated with "AMWORLD"-- called LORK? Phillips "confession" is starting to ring a little hollow for me. Sure he confessed to involvement with part of a coopted plan, but might it have been a strategic confession, designed to make us think "Oh well, he's confessed to this trajic mistake, so he probably isn't guilty of more sinister stuff? ( I have similar feelings about LBJ's later belief in a conspiracy:it just seems it could be part of a psychological ploy, to allay still deeper suspicions.)

Interesting article Bill. Any idea how he got into the transportation field? Were they impressed by his beach landings? Did he moonlight as a busdriver for Scroll and Key? Interesting how CIA connections can smooth over mid-life career changes.

Len --if Im Mr. Kettle your Mr. Pot. re: Ad Homs. Check my track record. admittedly I used the words diplomatic evidence a bit broadly. What I meant by that is A) records of US contacts and communications with foreign intelligence agencies and diplomatic offices. b History of previous warnings by US intelligence agencies and actions that corresponded to these warnings C) records of communications between US intelligence agencies and branches of gov. As you know there was a lot very disturbing and suggestive evidence presented in the mainstream US and foreign press concerning 9/11 from roughly the period 9/12/2001 until roughly November 2002. Then it was dropped down the memory hole, while americans were told to click on Popular Mechanics like a rat pushing for a food particle. Among these facts this one stands out: of the 1,734 (please check me on that number, but Im almost postive this is correct) FISA requests made by the FBI between the last modification of the FISA process in late 1995 and 9-11-01, only 1 was turned down: the Minneapolis laptop. This combined with hundreds of other facts, presened in context with similar occurances over a broad range of time, seemed to me a far more convincing means of arguing the need for a real investigation, than debating about the melting points of various metals without a physicist beside you on the sidewalk. It deserved an investigation and there never was one. Surely you don't call the Official 9-11 Conspiracy theory a true investigation!!!!!!! If I seemed snide, I apologize, but it was only because I perceive so many of your comment to be snide. Imagine that. Besides, I can't spell well enough to be snide. By the way, I never credited you with being a deliberate agent.

----------------------- Steve Im not sure I agree with you when you say the tabloids mission is not to misinform. Sure they do a lot of meaningless jello-news but there is a lot of disinformation also. For example Liz Smith the NY Post Gossip columnist, has been a leading pusher of anti-Kennedy unsubstantiated drivel, that smears the Kennedys in murder plots, not just sex-sleaze. For that matter, what about the tabloidish Walter Winchell? He was major McCarthyite, China-lobby red baiter that could smear millions into silence. The New York Post articles are full of disinformation. I remember about three days before the Iraq invasion, there was a COMPLETELY UNSOURCED story on page 3 of the Post saying Scott Ritter was suspected of kiddie porn. Not a single source. Not a single follow up article. Just raw smeeering of a guy who was arguably the single most dangerous media talking head (until he was removed from TV in 2001) in the US. Perhaps you have a different sense of the word disinformation? I agree that there are a lot of different types of disinformation, and they get more subtle as you move up the food chain, although in the case of NYT, not much more subtle these days.

This Debilitating Morass cant has something in common with the psychiatric hospitals in which dissidents were placed in the USSR: both are attempts to recast political issues in normative psychological terms. Most would agree that the problem of Soviet tyranny was socially constructed and not the product of individual psychological problems. It could have been helped by a) some sort of political checks and balances a free press. I think the best cure for Tim's "Debilitating Morass" here in the US would be the introduction of a) some sort of political checks and balances a free press.

1) Do you have any evidence that any (let alone a significant number) of the people who disagree with your position are "deliberate agents"? Or is this merely a baseless presumption? 2) Actually truthers, including computer programmers, theologians, philosophy professors, librarians etc, of their own accord started pushing technical arguments talking of “energy deficits”, “pyroclastic flows”, “faster than free fall collapses”, “the path of least resistance”, “fire ratings”, “seismic evidence” etc etc. The problem no one qualified in the respective fields backs their conclusions. I guess the forces of darkness are able to control every qualified expert in the world but are somehow unable to do the same with others. 3) What did you mean by “dimplomatic evidence” (sic)? Even “diplomatic evidence” doesn’t make sense. Len: thanks for the spell check; am (gradually) trying to become more carefull. As to the substance of your other remarks....ummmmmm once again you have put the sophist back in sophisticated.

This is a seriously outdated book, as Big Brother has been on more Steroids than Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire combined. Nevertheless, I consider it worth reading today, largely because it would surprise most people--even on this forum-- about how little it took to become the subject of infiltration efforts. http://www.amazon.com/Protectors-Privilege...a/dp/0520080351 Plenty of good footnotes for the paranoid!

On a related note, does anyone known when Morley's bio of the Mexico City Station Chief is coming out?

Paul: Great thread. Keep going. I thought you might be interested in hearing how Tim Weiner reports the Richardson V. Lodge. Keep in mind that this is how hundreds of thousands of Americans will have this history narrated, as his book is a best-seller right now. He sees the Diem killing as all Kennedy, no Agency. ..... The secretary of state, the dec of defense, and the director of central intelligence had not been consulted. All three were dubious about a coup against Diem. 'I should not have given my consent to it,' the president told himself after the consequences becamem clear. Yet the order went forward. Hilsman told Helms that the president had ordered Diem ousted. Helms handed the assignment to Bill Colby, the new chief of the CIA's Far East division. COlby passed it on to John Richardson....'In circumstance believe CIA must fully accept directive of policy makers and seek ways to accomplish objectives they seek' he instructed Richardson--though the order 'appears to be throwing away bird in hand before we have adequately identified birds in bush, or songs they may sing' Then Weiner goes on to portray Lodge as primarily jealous of Richardson's house: The ambassador resented the agency's exalted status in Saigon. He wrote in his private journal: bigger houses than diplomats; bigger slaries; more weapons; more modern equipment' He was jealous of the powers held by Richardson and he scoffed at the caution the station cheif displayed about Conein's central role in the coup plotting Lodge decided he wanted a new station chief..... So he burned Richardson--"exposed him, and gave his name publicly to the newspapers,' as Boby Kennedy said in a classified oral history eight months later--by feading a coldly calculated leak to a journeyman reporter passing through Saigon. The story was a hot scoop. Identifying Richardson by name-- an un- precedented breach of security-- it said he had 'frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the Agency disagreed with it.... One high official here. a man who has devoted most of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure evern the White House could control it.' The NYT and Washington Post picked up the story. Richardson his career ruined left Saigon four days later; after a decent interval, Ambassador Lodge moved into his house (pp. 216-217) Was this "jouneyman reporter" Starnes? What do you think of Weiner's narration which leaves the impression that the CIA in general was against the removal of Diem, but went along, because they were following the orders of Kennedy?

Steven, I agree with your conjecture that there are deliberate agents spreading false thoeries in order to prevent an concensus alternative theory from forming that has enough adherents to challenge the Governments theory in a pubic forum. Oh, then there is the problem of a public forum. There are none, anymore, unless you are the government or one of its press minions. Of course this does not exclude the reality that there are also just a lot of free lance idiots! In my opinion, one of the number one tasks of the agents was to get the 9/11 sceptics bogged down in arguments about the physical evidence. Why? This would require mediation by experts. The dimplomatic evidence was stronger, and didn't require the need of experts. The agents have certainly succeeded on this front.

Peter I hope I will not divert your thread too much with the following observation about Amazon: They now have a new feature for those writing reviews. This feature enables you to make easy links to other books that are sold on Amazon. I recently tried it, while writing a review of Tim Weiners book. Legacy of Ashes. I included a links to the Amazon pages for Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked and David Talbot' Brothers. I think it may have had some effect, as they both went up significantly in sales rank, thought of course I'm probably deluding myself. NEVERTHELESS IF THESE LINKS WERE MADE ON A NUMBER OF HIGHSELING BOOKS THAT PEOPLE WILL CLICK ON ANYWAY, IT COULD BE A GOOD WAY OF GETTING THEM TO CHECK OUT BOOKS THEY OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT EVER HEAR OF. This could be a tool for us to counter the corporate media's pushing of lone nutism. Also many may not have noticed it, but Larry's book has what must be among the highest ratings of books on Amazon. Those willing to write a quick review of it, and then perhaps click it into other reviews could make more people aware of the aclaim that it has received. If a tree falls in the forest and seventeen percent more people hear it ...

Bill- did you see this reference to Ford from the thread on DiEugenio's Review of Talbot: The book features a good discussion of the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. In this section he is explicit about the duplicity of Richard Helms in attempting to switch the blame for those plots from the CIA to the Kennedys. (pgs 87-88) He neatly notes that Helms had photos of all the presidents he served except Kennedy's. He even notes that Helms in death, was still deceptive about those plots in his posthumous memoir. (p. 110) A deft stroke by Talbot in this regard is his (further) exposure of Sy Hersh's hatchet job, The Dark Side of Camelot. He notes how Hersh was so cozy with the CIA in his writing of this book that he trusted covert operator Sam Halpern. Halpern told Hersh that RFK used the late Charles Ford to activate Mafia assets in Cuba to destabilize, and even kill, Castro. Talbot found a Church Committee memorandum by Ford. In discussing his interview with them he explained that his meetings with RFK on Cuba were about "the efforts of a Cuban exile group to foment an anti-Castro uprising, not on Mafia assassination plots." (p. 123) Talbot properly concludes that Helms and Halpern "fabricated their story about Bobby Kennedy and the Mafia ... Officials like Helms and Halpern tried to deflect public outrage over their unseemly collusion by pinning the blame on the late attorney general." Talbot could have added here that Halpern should have already been suspect to Hersh because he is listed as a witness in the CIA IG Report on the plots, which never mentions any of this material. Further, Halpern was placed in charge of the internal investigation of the CIA's supersensitive Operation Forty. A report that, to my knowledge, has yet to surface. The man who placed him in that position was Helms. The last lines are interesting.

The Kennedys don't come out of this book looking very good. Richard Helms does. 1. The Kennedys are described as by far the most violent with regard to Cuba. There is no mention of right wind Cuban groups acting on thier own. In fact the CIA is often depicted as more cautious: Bobby Kennedy kept calling in vain for commandos toblow up Cuba's powe plants, factories, and sugar mills in secret, Can CIA actually hope to generate such strikes?" Harvey repleid that it would take two more years an another 100$ million to creat a force capable of overthrowing Castro (p. 188) 2. On ZR-RIFLE Weiner trusts Helms and offers his moral meditations: I once put the question to Helms personally: Did President Kennedy want Castro dead? "There is nothing on paper. of course, he said evenly. But there is certainly no question in my mind that he did..... Helms thought political assassination in peacetime was a moral aberation. But there were practical considerations as well. "If you become involved in the business of elimination foriegn leaders, and it is considered by governemnts more frequently than one likes to admit, there is always the question of who comes next, " he observed. 'If you kill somone else's leaders, why shouldn't they kill yours? Sure enough the only two possibilities Weiner mentions in reguard to the assassination Lone Nut, and Castro did it! 3. Weiner claims that on August 21, RFK asked McCone if the CIA could stage a phoney attack on the American militray base at Guatanamo Bay as a pretext for an American invasion of Cuba: "McCone demurred, He told John Kennedy in private the next day that an invasion could ba fatal mistake, He warned the president for the first time that the thought the Soviets might be installing medium range ballistic missiles in Cuba. If so an American sneak attack might set off a nuclear war" (p.193) Has anyone heard this warning made by McCone to JFK before? I realize that much is still debatable re the Kennedy's and Cuba, but Weiner depicts the Kennedys as if they are the only one' advocating assassination and invasion! 4. Here is Weiner on "Project Mockingibrd": The President told McCone to set up a domestic task force to stop the flow of secrets from the government to the newspapers. The order violated the agency's charter, which specifically prohibits domestic spying. Long before Nixon created his 'plumbers' unit of CIA veterans to stop news leaks, Kennedy used the agency to spy on Americans (p.193) 5. Weiner describes Helms as out of the loop on the Bay of Pigs invasion. Was he?