Jump to content
The Education Forum

"The Intra-Administration War in Vietnam"


Recommended Posts

I think we're all familiar with this article from the Oct 3 NY Times, by Arthur Krock, seemingly defending the CIA.

It has this passage:

"Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a “very high American official…who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy…are the following:The C.I.A.’s growth was “likened to a malignancy” which the “very high official was not sure even the White House could control…any longer.” “If the United States ever experiences [a coup] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon.” The agency “represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”

http://www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html

So is this:

-Just what it seems, the CIA defending itself thru a NY Times mouthpiece?

Or

-Just what it seems, a high level official expressing fear of the CIA thru the media?

Or

-Misdirection?

If, as I'm starting to believe, the pentagon was a major force in President Kennedy's murder, could this article be preemptive

propaganda to deflect suspicion away from the military and towards the CIA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're all familiar with this article from the Oct 3 NY Times, by Arthur Krock, seemingly defending the CIA.

It has this passage:

"Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a “very high American official…who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy…are the following:The C.I.A.’s growth was “likened to a malignancy” which the “very high official was not sure even the White House could control…any longer.” “If the United States ever experiences [a coup] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon.” The agency “represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”

http://www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html

So is this:

-Just what it seems, the CIA defending itself thru a NY Times mouthpiece?

Or

-Just what it seems, a high level official expressing fear of the CIA thru the media?

Or

-Misdirection?

If, as I'm starting to believe, the pentagon was a major force in President Kennedy's murder, could this article be preemptive

propaganda to deflect suspicion away from the military and towards the CIA?

Myra,

Your first of three options may be in need of review. Did you mean to write "the Pentagon" rather than "the CIA" defending itself?

My money is on "misdirection."

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're all familiar with this article from the Oct 3 NY Times, by Arthur Krock, seemingly defending the CIA.

It has this passage:

"Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a “very high American official…who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy…are the following:The C.I.A.’s growth was “likened to a malignancy” which the “very high official was not sure even the White House could control…any longer.” “If the United States ever experiences [a coup] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon.” The agency “represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”

http://www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html

So is this:

-Just what it seems, the CIA defending itself thru a NY Times mouthpiece?

Or

-Just what it seems, a high level official expressing fear of the CIA thru the media?

Or

-Misdirection?

If, as I'm starting to believe, the pentagon was a major force in President Kennedy's murder, could this article be preemptive

propaganda to deflect suspicion away from the military and towards the CIA?

Myra,

Your first of three options may be in need of review. Did you mean to write "the Pentagon" rather than "the CIA" defending itself?

My money is on "misdirection."

Charles

I actually meant CIA Charles, in the sense that the article is a big sob story about how the poor CIA is covert so can't defend themselves against the spurious charges of the mean president. So Krock is defending them to the public. I think it's possible that the overall "defense of CIA" article, however, is an excuse to plant that little blurb about a possible CIA coup. And it may be misdirection from the pentagon.

In other words, should this article be taken at face value or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually meant CIA Charles, in the sense that the article is a big sob story about how the poor CIA is covert so can't defend themselves against the spurious charges of the mean president. So Krock is defending them to the public. I think it's possible that the overall "defense of CIA" article, however, is an excuse to plant that little blurb about a possible CIA coup. And it may be misdirection from the pentagon.

In other words, should this article be taken at face value or not?

Interestingly line of thought. Problems:

1. Time - Krock was tasked by the Agency with producing an instant rebuttal that had to be ready for next day's edition. I'm very doubtful anything else impinged - or, indeed, had time to.

2. Unavoidable constraints - Krock couldn't very well say "Richard Starnes has said something nasty about the CIA, but I can't tell you what, dear reader!" He had to quote from Starnes' piece in order to render a rebuttal possible. Note, though, how he turns Starnes' alarming quotes to CIA purposes: JFK presides over a disorderly administration. This was a theme first taken up by Krock and Joe Alsop post-Bay of Pigs.

3. Connections - Krock's friendships appear to have been with senior CIA rather than military. See Harrison Salisbury's footnote to p.490, Without Fear or Favor: "Allen Dulles' correspondence at Prineton University's Firestone Library does not suggest intimacy between himself and Arthur Sulzberger nor between himself and Cyrus Sulzberger. Letters exchanged Arthur Krock and Dulles, Arthur Krock and John McCone, Arthur Krock and Frank Wisner, held at Firestone, indicate a considerably closer friendship."

4. Precedent - Krock had a record as a spook mouthpiece, one derived from his service to certain Wall St circles, going back to 1941 at least. In a future posting, I'll illustrate the point.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...