John Simkin

This man died in 1958 and is not a suspect in the JFK in the assassination of JFK. However, he played an important role in developing the network that made it possible.

Message from Michael Ravnitzky: http://www.legalinformationmanagement.com/...pra/new_05.html This is a search engine for the 50 years of archives of Pacifica Radio, containing a huge number of radio interviews, broadcasts and programs, descriptions searchable by keyword. A simple search like "JFK" or "assassination" results in many many pages of results. Anyone can order copies of the tapes they have. Try it out and tell others.

This is not only information that is found on the tapes. LBJ told all his friends that is why he was covering up the Castro connection. However, that does not make it true. In 1963, no one with any understanding of the Cold War would have really thought that the Soviets would have taken part in a nuclear war if the US invaded Cuba. It was the same reason why the Soviets knew that the US would not go to war when they invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 (although CIA agents constantly told East European dissents that this was going to happen). It was called “sphere of interest”. It was an agreement that the two superpowers could do what they liked in their own backyard. LBJ knew that the Soviets would never go to war over Cuba. Let me ask you a couple of questions. (1) Why did LBJ fail to present the evidence he had against Castro to the United Nations? (Like Bush did over Iraq). As with Bush, he could then have issued an ultimatum claiming that if the UN did not take action, the US would invade Cuba. (2) If LBJ was afraid of invading Cuba as a result of Castro assassinating the president of the US because it would have triggered a nuclear war, why did he not have that fear when he started bombing Vietnam, a communist country close to the borders of China (a country that was much more likely to resort to a nuclear attack on the US).

It is interesting that in the UK you can only get anything about the assassination of JFK published unless you say Oswald did it alone or he did it on the orders of Fidel Castro. (This was not the case until recent years.) Fidel Castro has always been accused of ordering assassinations that were really the responsibility of the CIA. For example, see the articles written by William F. Buckley after the assassination of Orlando Letelier. Of course Castro had no motive for wanting JFK dead. In fact, because of the negotiations via William Attwood, he had every reason to want to keep JFK alive. If Castro did have agents in Dallas their role would have been to try and prevent the assassination. The other major problem with this theory is why would LBJ order the FBI to cover-up Castro’s involvement in the assassination? Was the Warren Commission stacked with Castro sympathizers? Since 1959 the American government had been trying to illegally overthrow Castro’s government. We are asked to believe that in 1963 that the FBI/CIA had strong evidence that Castro had ordered the assassination of JFK. Why was this evidence not revealed to the world in 1963? Who would have complained if the US had sent in the troops to arrest Castro for this crime? If that was being too aggressive, why not present the information to the Security Council of the United Nations? LBJ does none of these things. Instead, he apparently orders the FBI and the Warren Commission to cover up Castro’s role in the assassination. How can any sane, logical person, believe such nonsense? A final thought. Tim Gratz continually accuses Castro of showing barbarity towards his own dissents. (I also disagree with his use of capital punishment but then again, I am consistent about this, I also disapprove of its use in other countries, including the United States.) Yet, Castro catches Cubella plotting his assassination. He confesses but unlike other Cuban dissents he is not executed. Nor is he imprisoned for life. Instead he is released and allowed to go and live in Spain. Very strange.

Members will be pleased to know that Douglas Caddy has joined the Forum. Hopefully he will be willing to answer some of the questions raised in this thread.

Jon di Paolo Tuesday December 27, 2005 The Guardian http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/new...1674067,00.html Britain's biggest cads, rogues and evil-doers from the past 1,000 years have been given special recognition by historians. Academics have put together a list of 10 rogues whose deeds and behaviour they feel sets them apart as the worst of the worst. Kings, politicians, archbishops and mass murderers all feature in the run-down, which sees one villain nominated for each of the past 10 centuries. The vilest character of the 20th century was said to be Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union of Fascists. Professor Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, said Mosley still had a "pernicious impact" on British society as an inspiration for far-right groups. "On his death in 1980 his son Nicholas concluded that his father was a man whose 'right hand dealt with grandiose ideas and glory' while his left hand 'let the rat out of the sewer'," she said. Jack the Ripper got the vote as the 19th century's worst rogue, although his real identity is still unknown. He is believed to have murdered at least four prostitutes in Whitechapel, east London, in the second half of 1888. Others on the list, which was compiled for BBC History Magazine, included King John and two archbishops of Canterbury. Marc Morris, writer and presenter of Castle on Channel 4, described King John, who died in 1216, as "one of the worst kings in English history. John committed some wicked deeds and was a deeply unpleasant person. He was untrusting, he would snigger at people while they talked and couldn't resist kicking a man when he was down." Top of the list for the 18th century was the Duke of Cumberland, nicknamed "Butcher" after his merciless defeat of the Young Pretender, Charles Edward Stuart, and his Highlanders at Culloden in April 1746. One archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, who was made a saint, was nominated by Professor John Hudson of St Andrews University as the worst villain of the 12th century. He said: "He divided England in a way that even many churchmen who shared some of his views thought unnecessary and self-indulgent. He was a founder of gesture politics. He was also greedy. Those who share my prejudice against Becket may consider his assassination in Canterbury Cathedral on December 29 1170 a fittingly grisly end." Dave Musgrove, editor of BBC History Magazine, said putting the list together had been a challenging task. "It's not an easy choice - is it the person who murdered the most citizens, or the one who led the country into the most desperate straits of poverty or war, or perhaps just he who trod most unscrupulously on those around him? We left the criteria up to the 10 historians we spoke to, and it's their definitions of wickedness that give us such a diverse selection of figures on our list of evilness." The villains: Bad characters through the centuries 1900-2000 Oswald Mosley Mosley served as an MP for first the Conservatives and then Labour before leaving mainstream politics to found the British Union of Fascists in 1932. Four years later he married his second wife at the home of Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, with Hitler reportedly among the guests. 1800-1900 Jack the Ripper Jack the Ripper was the name given to a killer believed to be responsible for the murders of at least four prostitutes in Whitechapel, east London, in 1888. Despite a huge effort by the Met, the Ripper was never caught, and his identity is still shrouded in mystery. 1700-1800 Duke of Cumberland Prince William, son of King George II, was brutal in quelling the Jacobite rising of 1746. The "no quarter" manner way in which he dealt with the Highlanders who fought for the Young Pretender - Bonnie Prince Charlie - at Culloden earned the Duke of Cumberland the nickname "Butcher". 1600-1700 Titus Oates In 1678 Oates concocted a story about a Catholic plot to murder King Charles II which led to scores of people being rounded up and several innocents being put to death. He was jailed for perjury. 1500-1600 Sir Richard Rich Throughout his life Rich shifted his political and religious allegiances to further his career. During the reign of Henry VIII he gave evidence against Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher which helped to convict them of treason, for which they were executed. 1400-1500 Thomas Arundel Arundel served as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1397 and from 1399 until his death. He used his authority to persecute the Lollards, a group promoting a lay priesthood and translations of the Bible. 1300-1400 Hugh Despenser Despenser became one of the richest men in the kingdom by eliminating his enemies and greedily seizing land in south Wales. He was eventually executed as a traitor. 1200-1300 King John John captured and apparently murdered his nephew, Arthur of Brittany, who was his rival for the throne after the death of Richard the Lionheart. His misdeeds included hanging 28 sons of rebel Welsh chieftains he had been holding hostage, and starving an enemy's wife and son to death in prison. 1100-1200 Thomas Becket Becket divided England by quarrelling with King Henry II about the rights of the church. He was assassinated by four knights from Henry's court in Canterbury Cathedral. 1000-1100 Eadric Streona King Aethelred II's chief counsellor, Streona betrayed his country by switching sides when the Danish king Cnut invaded England in 1015. He was later executed by Cnut.

Interesting exchange of letters on Oliver Cromwell in the Guardian: (1) Your correspondent justifies the removal of the statue of Cromwell from Manchester on the grounds that he was "the leader of so many colonial massacres in Ireland" (Letters, January 3). However he fails to state that there were two. In the first, at Drogheda, the victims were mainly English and in the second, at Wexford, there is no good evidence that Cromwell was responsible. Would he advocate the removal of statues of the Duke of Wellington, here and in Spain and Portugal, on the grounds of his "leadership" in the massacre of civilians in Spain? (David Evans, Bristol) (2) While Cromwell had, on balance, a positive effect on the general development of England; for the populations of Ireland, among other nations, he was the harbinger of doom, casting the Irish Catholic population down the route which led to death, disaster and social disintegration (Letters, January 4). Cromwell is considered by Irish people in the same way as Hitler is viewed by the English. The difference being that Cromwell succeeded in his project. This led to the removal of civil rights from Catholics, and to the eventual plantation of Ulster. For David Evans to suggest that "there is no good evidence" to blame Cromwell for the Wexford massacre is akin to suggesting that Queen Victoria didn't know that British soldiers were everywhere wading knee deep in the blood of their victims. To be fair to Evans, he is asking for a consistent approach. Should we not remove all the statues of mass murderers if we remove one? Answer - yes. (Philip Foxe, London) (3) Can I recommend Cromwell, an Honourable Enemy by Drogheda-born academic Tom Reilly? Based on contemporary sources rather than Restoration bias, Reilly shows that Cromwell did not massacre the inhabitants of Drogheda, he didn't even kill all the soldiers as was his right under 17th-century rules of warfare. His first action on landing in Dublin was to issue a proclamation offering to buy all the local produce for his army. He also forbade his soldiers to harm country people who weren't under arms. Two men from his forces were executed in the run up to the siege of Drogheda for stealing chickens from a local inhabitant. Hardly the actions of a murdering tyrant. (CJ Kedge, Prescot, Merseyside) (4) As a native of Drogheda and author of Cromwell - An Honourable Enemy, I publicly challenge any 17th-century expert to make a credible case that plausibly suggests Oliver Cromwell and/or the men under his command engaged in the deliberate killing of even one unarmed civilian in Ireland during his nine-month Irish campaign (Letters, January 6). I am ready, willing and able to debate this issue anywhere with anyone. Page 87 of Earthlink 5th Class - a history book currently on the school curriculum in Ireland states: "Cromwell's army captured Drogheda and about 3,000 men, women and children were killed." Academics of the period should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this nonsense to be taught to children. Isn't it about time we grew up and recognised the facts? No jury would convict Cromwell of killing innocent civilians in Ireland with the evidence that's available. (Tom Reilly, Drogheda, Co Louth, Ireland) (5) If the testimony of Irish witnesses is to be ignored, then Cromwell can speak for himself. He described his campaign as "the great work against the barbarous and bloodthirsty Irish". Of Drogheda he wrote to parliament that he "forbade them to spare any that were in arms in the town"; in just one night "they put to the sword about 2,000 men", and "near 1,000" who had fled to a church "for safety" were "put to the sword", including their "friars". When Wexford surrendered, his men "put all to the sword that came in their way": Cromwell counted 2,000, leaving "scarce one in 20" of the town's civilian inhabitants. (Peter McKenna, Manchester)

During the debate on tuition fees government ministers insisted that this would not result in a fall in university applications. Figures published today show that the government was wrong. The higher education minister admitted that university applications this year fell for the first time in eight years. Anyway, Tony Blair got support from David Cameron today as he announced a change in policy. It seems that the Tories got their sums wrong in the last election and as the "New Conservative Party" does not believe in higher taxes, it now supports tuition fees.

Report just posted on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4594836.stm The Conservative party has announced a U-turn on student finance - now saying that it supports student tuition fees. Previously it had promised to scrap all fees, including top-ups being introduced from this autumn in England. On Monday, party leader David Cameron told sixth formers that if universities were to be well funded, the money had to come from somewhere. Mr Cameron also pledged that there would be no return to the 11-plus exam or any expansion in grammar schools. The Conservatives' new direction in education was set out by Mr Cameron on a visit to Chalvedon School and Sixth Form College in Basildon, Essex. Before making his first major policy statement on education since becoming leader, Mr Cameron told sixth formers he supported tuition fees - reversing the party's position at the last general election. "I want to say absolutely clearly, the Conservative party that I am leading does not want to go back to the 11-plus, does not want to go back to the grammar school system." "On the issue of student fees, I'll say something that's probably a bit unpopular in the room," he said. "I'm afraid I think we're going to have to keep student fees, and I'll tell you why. "You want to go to universities that are well-funded, [with] good tutors, good facilities and I want as many people who think they're going to benefit from university to be able to go." "If you want those things - and as you also know we've also got to keep taxes down in this country - the money's got to come from somewhere." "Yes, I'm afraid students are going to have to make a contribution." From the autumn, students in English universities will face tuition fees of up to £3,000 per year - a measure only narrowly introduced by the government after a backbench rebellion of Labour MPs. Indicating another higher education policy change, Mr Cameron said he believed there should be no limit on student numbers - a shift away from the previous policy that opposed the government's plans to increase the proportion of young people in higher education. In a later speech to staff at the school, Mr Cameron promised a major change in the emphasis of education policy for a "modern, compassionate Conservative party" - and an emphatic rejection of academic selection. He said that he wanted to reject the previous ideological approaches of both left and right and to "focus on what goes on in schools, rather than have endless arguments over systems and organisations". Mr Cameron, distancing himself from Conservative sympathies for the grammar system, said: "I want to say absolutely clearly, the Conservative party that I am leading does not want to go back to the 11-plus, does not want to go back to the grammar school system." And he dismissed the "backwards looking" arguments over admissions and selection - arguing instead that instead of debating school structures, the central issue was raising standards in state schools. The mechanism for this would be to increase the use of "setting", in which pupils of different abilities would be taught in different groups within a school. The party's education spokesperson, David Willetts, also suggested that the voucher-style "pupil passport", providing state subsidies for private schools, which had been the party's election policy, was no longer on the agenda. On higher education, Mr Willetts said policy detail had still to be determined, but that the party's previous opposition to student numbers rising above 50% was no longer a fixed commitment.

It is becoming clear that US political lobbyists might have been involved in a large number of illegal covert activities carried out by CIA operatives and their foreign assets. For example, Tommy Corcoran (the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala), Irving Davidson (the assassination of JFK) and Michael Deaver (death squads in El Salvador and Argentina). Members might be interested in Gary Younge's account of how political lobbyists are undermining democracy in the USA. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5801

Indeed I will. However, at the moment I have only posted an introduction. I will fully document my theory in later postings. That will be the time to question my interpretation of the sources.

This posting has nothing to do with the thread that I started. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799 Members are welcome to criticise what I say, but I think it is better to wait until I say it. I have put this post here because I did not want to be accused of censorship.

Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-2006 All of Reagan's talent as a leader and command over the political process has been needed to keep the contra cause even vaguely viable during the years of his presidency, and at great cost to his leverage on other issues. But what is more frightening than these indications of presidential gridlock is the extent to which the real center of power and decision making on these matters may not even have been in the White House. A significant degree of policy-forming leadership may have actually been "privatized," passing to an assortment of fringe forces represented by such notables as Singlaub, Secord, and Clines, who in this sense provided the basic framework within which Reagan, McFarlane and Casey have acted, with North and Poindexter featured as trustworthy handmaidens. In this regard, the deferred consequences of the long buildup within government during the 1950s and 1960s of a secret paramilitary capability entrusted with interventionary missions is beginning to be evident. The problem centers upon the CIA, and its large number of agents and ex-agents working around the globe in close collaboration with right-wing and criminal elements, including those that were operating death squads in El Salvador and Argentina, enlisting support from groups and individuals who were overtly fascist, even neo-Nazi. The laudable post-Vietnam move in Congress to cut back on the covert operations role of the CIA during the Nixon and Carter presidencies created an optical illusion that this secret government was being substantially destroyed, as indeed many hundred agents were prematurely retired or even fired. Thus CIA alumni were dumped into society or cynically relocated "off-shore," bitter, ambitious, and in contact with various anti-communist exile groups, as well as with a cohort of their colleagues continuing at work within the agency, themselves embittered by the adverse turn of the wheel of political fortune that deprecated their craft and scorned their politics. Such a subterranean presence brings terrorism home, as during the anti-Castro bombings of the 1970s carried out by exile extremists in the eastern part of the United States. At the same time, there is created the nucleus of a political conspiracy waiting to prey upon the very bureaucracy that seemed ungrateful, and lacks the convictions and capabilities needed to uphold American interests in a hostile world. (Richard Falk, The Iran Contra Connection, 1987) Introduction Over the last few years I have attended several JFK assassination conferences. I have discovered that the JFK research community has a large number of people who know a great deal about very little. What I mean by this is that we have people who know everything you could possibly know about the Zapruder film or the autopsy photographs? Don’t get me wrong, it is important that we know about these things. We also have a few people who know a substantial amount about all the events of 1963. These researchers often have a theory of who assassinated JFK. However, even these researchers often fail to see the event within its historical context. I believe it is impossible to fully understand the assassination of JFK without a good understanding of events that took place in the 20 years that preceded the assassination. We also need to be aware of the events that have taken place since 1963. The assassination of JFK was not a one off event. It was just one of many crimes committed by a network of people that originated from a meeting that took place in 1940. This network does not have a name. All the people who established this network in the 1940s are now dead. However, a large number of those who joined this network at a later stage are still alive. Some of course are not only alive but are still active in these covert operations. Some members of this network played active roles for a long period of time. This includes people like Tommy Corcoran, Paul Helliwell, David Attlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, John Singlaub, Richard Secord, William F. Buckley, Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, Edwin Wilson, Ray Cline, George H. W. Bush, William Casey, Irving Davidson, Luis Posada Carrilles, Orlando Bosch, Felix Ismael Rodriguez, Chi Chi Quintero, Roberto D'Aubuisson, Adolfo Cuellar, Raul Molina, Mario Sandoval Alarcon, Jorge Rafael Videla, Sun Myung Moon, Park Chung Hee, Ryiochi Sasakawa and Raimundo Guerrero. Although this network was initiated by a man who held fairly liberal political views at the time, by the late 1940s, it was firmly under the control of the far right. In fact, I would go as far as describing the group as being “neo fascist”. This network, despite its obsessive anti-communism, has attempted to undermine the democratic process. Right from the beginning, when it was launched by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the main intention was to avoid democratic accountability. It has been able to do this by hiding behind the cloak of national security. Over the next couple of months I will attempt to provide a historical context for not only the assassination of John F. Kennedy but a series of events that can be located in an attempt by this network to take part in what Richard Falk above called the privatization of American foreign policy. Personally, I prefer to use the term contracting out, as in most cases, figures from within the US government, have played an important role in guiding this policy. It is for this reason that I have avoided using the term “privatization” as I believe it provides a misleading impression of what has been taking place. This network is still active today. This is not surprising as the president’s father has played such an important role in the development of what has become a major force in undermining democracy over the last 60 years.

A typical response of an American imperialist. I can assure you that some of the world's best quotations come from the UK (especially those concerning political strategy that were developed in our imperialist period). My football coach did not claim that he invented the phrase. He probably got in from his football coach in the 1930s. By the way, when I talk about football, I mean world football, not American football (one example of how our form of imperialism was greater than that of the Americans). I hope this is not an example of your trying to direct attention away from Gerry's willingless to create a timeline of his life.

I do not have a FAX number. There is nothing stopping Gerry sending me or other members of the Forum documents as email attachments. That is what Tosh has done and that is one of the reasons why I tend to believe what he tells me. However, the issue on this thread is not Tosh. I started this topic in order to persuade Gerry to post a clear and concise account of his activities in relation to the JFK assassination. I thought the best way to do this would be in the form of a timeline (I thought it would help impose some sort of structure to his writings). As I said, I would then use this information to correct my web page on Gerry. For some reason he has refused to do this. It is up to members to make up their own mind why Gerry tries to intimidate Tosh into not posting while at the same time is so reluctant to answer straight forward questions.

My invitation to Gerry to put the record straight about his past has been turned into an attack on Tosh Plumlee. As my old football coach used to say, the best form of defence is attack. However, it has not got as very far as Gerry seems reluctant to post a timeline of his life (what you were doing and when you were doing it). I have also asked Tosh to do the same. It might give you an idea of how it is done. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5793

Tosh, you have come under a lot of attack from Gerry Hemming about your past. I thoought it might be a good idea to start a thread where you could post a timeline of your past activities. I have asked Gerry to do the same but so far he seems reluctant to do so.

Ed, have you ever considered producing some "alternative" materials on Winston Churchill? He is always treated too kindly in UK text books.

I suspect that if Ming Cambell is elected unopposed the damage to the Liberal Democrats will be limited. They will then be in a good position to take advantage when the Tories split over Cameron´s move to the left. Or can right-wing Tories keep quiet until after the next election?

I have been doing some research into Thomas Concoran and have found out some fascinating information on him. Not only was he the main person responsible for getting LBJ on the JFK ticket in 1960 he was also heavily involved in CIA covert operations between 1947 and 1963. He was also extremely close to William Pawley and Paul Helliwell and played an important role in PBSUCCESS (information in CIA files declassified in 1997). I will provide more details next week.

Recently released documents reveal that Churchill wanted Hitler executed without trial. Churchill also insisted that Hess should not be allowed to talk freely to the media (Hess was almost certainly murdered while in prison). What was Churchill so frightened about what Hitler and Hess had to tell the world? I suspect it was his fear that they might disclose that Churchill was trying to negotiate a peace deal with Nazi Germany in 1940. If this got out it would completely change the way we see Churchill as an historical figure. http://spartacus-educational.com/PRchurchill.htm http://spartacus-educational.com/GERhitler.htm

Being away on holiday I have not been able to keep up to date on this story. However, it certainly deserves a thread. I saw the Charles Kennedy admission that he had a drink problem. No one appeared to point out that he has been lying about this since he was first asked about it five years ago. So it seems have leading members of the party who forced him to seek treatment for this problem 18 months ago. His admission that he had been lying were good enough grounds for him to resign. His attempts to hold onto power have been pathetic and he will have to go (probably by Monday). His behaviour has shown that fellow members of the party were right to call on him to resign.

I explain this issue on my web page on Anderson. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAandersonJ.htm This is the relevant passage: Joe McCarthy continued to provide Anderson with a lot of information. In his autobiography, Confessions of a Muckraker, Anderson pointed out: "At my prompting he (McCarthy) would phone fellow senators to ask what had transpired this morning behind closed doors or what strategy was planned for the morrow. While I listened in on an extension he would pump even a Robert Taft or a William Knowland with the handwritten questions I passed him." In return, Anderson provided McCarthy with information about politicians and state officials he suspected of being "communists". Anderson later recalled that his decision to work with McCarthy "was almost automatic.. for one thing, I owed him; for another, he might be able to flesh out some of our inconclusive material, and if so, I would no doubt get the scoop." As a result Anderson passed on his file on the presidential aide, David Demarest Lloyd. On 9th February, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Salt Lake City where he attacked Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, as "a pompous diplomat in striped pants". He claimed that he had a list of 57 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party. McCarthy went on to argue that some of these people were passing secret information to the Soviet Union. He added: "The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give." The list of names was not a secret and had been in fact published by the Secretary of State in 1946. These people had been identified during a preliminary screening of 3,000 federal employees. Some had been communists but others had been fascists, alcoholics and sexual deviants. As it happens, if Joe McCarthy had been screened, his own drink problems and sexual preferences would have resulted in him being put on the list. Drew Pearson immediately launched an attack on McCarthy. He pointed out that only three people on the list were State Department officials. He added that when this list was first published four years ago, Gustavo Duran and Mary Jane Keeney had both resigned from the State Department (1946). The third person, John Service, had been cleared after a prolonged and careful investigation. Pearson also argued that none of these people had been members of the American Communist Party. Anderson asked Pearson to stop attacking McCarthy: "He is our best source on the Hill." Pearson replied, "He may be a good source, Jack, but he's a bad man." On 20th February, 1950, Joe McCarthy made a speech in the Senate supporting the allegations he had made in Salt Lake City. This time he did not describe them as "card-carrying communists" because this had been shown to be untrue. Instead he argued that his list were all "loyalty risks". He also claimed that one of the president's speech-writers, was a communist. Although he did not name him, he was referring to David Demarest Lloyd, the man that Anderson had provided information on. Lloyd immediately issued a statement where he defended himself against McCarthy's charges. President Harry S. Truman not only kept him on but promoted him to the post of Administrative Assistant. Lloyd was indeed innocent of these claims and McCarthy was forced to withdraw these allegations. As Anderson admitted: "At my instigation, then, Lloyd had been done an injustice that was saved from being grevious only by Truman's steadfastness." McCarthy now informed Anderson that he had evidence that Professor Owen Lattimore, director of the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, was a Soviet spy. Pearson, who knew Lattimore, and while accepting he held left-wing views, he was convinced he was not a spy. In his speeches, McCarthy referred to Lattimore as "Mr X... the top Russian spy... the key man in a Russian espionage ring." On 26th March, 1950, Drew Pearson named Lattimore as McCarthy's Mr. X. Pearson then went onto defend Lattimore against these charges. McCarthy responded by making a speech in Congress where he admitted: "I fear that in the case of Lattimore I may have perhaps placed too much stress on the question of whether he is a paid espionage agent." McCarthy then produced Louis Budenz, the former editor of The Daily Worker. Budenz claimed that Lattimore was a "concealed communist". However, as Anderson admitted: "Budenz had never met Lattimore; he spoke not from personal observation of him but from what he remembered of what others had told him five, six, seven and thirteen years before." Pearson now wrote an article where he showed that Budenz was a serial xxxx: "Apologists for Budenz minimize this on the ground that Budenz has now reformed. Nevertheless, untruthful statements made regarding his past and refusal to answer questions have a bearing on Budenz's credibility." He went on to point out that "all in all, Budenz refused to answer 23 questions on the ground of self-incrimination". Owen Lattimore was eventually cleared of the charge that he was a Soviet spy or a secret member of the American Communist Party and like other victims of McCarthyism, he went to live in Europe and for several years was professor of Chinese studies at Leeds University. Despite the efforts of Jack Anderson, by the end of June, 1950, Drew Pearson had written more than forty daily columns and a significant percentage of his weekly radio broadcasts, that had been devoted to discrediting the charges made by Joe McCarthy. As a result, McCarthy decided to take on Pearson. McCarthy told Anderson: "Jack, I'm going to have to go after your boss. I mean, no holds barred. I figure I've already lost his supporters; by going after him, I can pick up his enemies." McCarthy, when drunk, told Assistant Attorney General Joe Keenan, that he was considering "bumping Pearson off". On 15th December, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Congress where he claimed that Pearson was "the voice of international Communism" and "a Moscow-directed character assassin." McCarthy added that Pearson was "a prostitute of journalism" and that Pearson "and the Communist Party murdered James Forrestal in just as cold blood as though they had machine-gunned him." Over the next two months McCarthy made seven Senate speeches on Drew Pearson. He called for a "patriotic boycott" of his radio show and as a result, Adam Hats, withdrew as Pearson's radio sponsor. Although he was able to make a series of short-term arrangements, Pearson was never again able to find a permanent sponsor. Twelve newspapers cancelled their contract with Pearson. Joe McCarthy and his friends also raised money to help Fred Napoleon Howser, the Attorney General of California, to sue Pearson for $350,000. This involved an incident in 1948 when Pearson accused Howser of consorting with mobsters and of taking a bribe from gambling interests. Help was also given to Father Charles Coughlin, who sued Pearson for $225,000. However, in 1951 the courts ruled that Pearson had not libeled either Howser or Coughlin. Only the St. Louis Star-Times defended Pearson. As its editorial pointed out: "If Joseph McCarthy can silence a critic named Drew Pearson, simply by smearing him with the brush of Communist association, he can silence any other critic." However, Pearson did get the support of J. William Fulbright, Wayne Morse, Clinton Anderson, William Benton and Thomas Hennings in the Senate. After his attack on Drew Pearson, Anderson had no choice but to abandoned Joe McCarthy. He now joined forces with Wisconsin reporter Ronald W. May to write McCarthy: The Man, the Senator, the Ism (1952).

Very interesting posting. I would like to know more about this: "A friend of mine who has corresponded with Wheaton for several years says that Wheaton believes that the British were behind the assassination of JFK."

William Buckley´s sister, Priscilla Buckley, also worked for the CIA. According to the historian, Gary Wills, Priscilla attempted to access her brother´s file when she was working for the CIA´s European desk. She discovered that his file did not exist. It had been destroyed. Why had the CIA done that? After all, he only held a fairly minor role in Mexico City under E. Howard Hunt.