Jump to content

Fowler Hamilton: the DCI who never was


Paul Rigby
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gill's tome goes a long way toward convincing the layman or uninitiated of the JFK Assassination that the

JFK Administration was "secretly appointing Communist's and Communist sympathizers to his administration," as such, it is still a very valuable book to the politically correct view regarding the assassination.

What would be some of the politically incorrect views of the assassination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I would tend to agree with that perception regarding Stuart Symington, somewhere I have a long interview with him, and it reads like someone who makes a conscious effort to distance himself from JFK, something that is neither here nor there in the big picture, as far as I am concerned. There are a couple of things about this whole area that are, hopefully worth mentioning.

One is that Gill's book mentions that when Otto Otepka decided he needed an attorney he settled on Roger Robb, who, according to Gill, handled the Oppenheimer Case for the Atomic Energy Commission.

The mention of Seymour Judson Janow is more than slightly interesting to me by virtue of thge fact that again, according to Gill, [i.e. relying on someone else's assertions of fact can be fatal for Forum posts] "Janow wound up....as a civilian consultant to General Claire Chennault, commander of the famed 14th Air Force 'Flying Tigers.'His job included certain intelligence chores.....It was in China that Janow first met Fowler Hamilton..After the war, Janow drifted to Japan where he worked, still as a civilian for the Supreme Allied Command Pacific (SCAP). He resigned from SCAP early in 1949

while under investigation by Army Intelligence but he swore in 1963 that he had not known until then that an Army inquiry board had declared him a security risk.* Author's asterisk, which states that "The Army Inquiry board was overruled by the Secretary of the Army on July 13, 1949, after Janow had left SCAP.

see p. 270 of The Ordeal of Otto Otepka,

Why that is interesting to me is that J. Walton Moore, the Dallas CIA station chief was also part of that China background, and I know that there are a few others...John Stewart Service to name at least one, the H.L. Hunt offspring Hassie is mentioned in the book Kingdom as being "stationed at the Carleton Hotel in Washington D.C. ......He was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army Corp of Engineers, and assigned to a special position as an adviser to the Chinese national government of Chiang Kai-Shek."

p. 207; Kingdom: The Story of The Hunt Family of Texas - Jerome Tucille - Jameson Books - 1984, Paperbacks Ltd 1987

And then there is the following footnote, getting back to Benjamin Gill's book regarding Otto Otepka, on page 261.... mention of the death of Kennedy "confidant" James M. Landis in 1964.

The whole context requires posting fairly extensive passages from Gill's book, but basically Gill is speaking about Abba Schwartz, and the firm of Landis, Cohen, Ruben and Schwartz. Fairly extensive tar and feathering of Jewish persons by Gill, based on allegations, that I certainly do not claim to possess knowledge of one way or another....At any rate, the footnote states....

The Landis of this firm was James M. Landis confidant of the Kennedy family, who was convicted for failing even to trouble himself with filing income tax returns for some years. Landis was found dead at the bottom of his swimming pool in 1964. He was fully clothed but his death was termed "accidental."

p 261 - The Ordeal of Otto Otepka - William J. Gill - Arlington House - 1969

One last note, there are certain areas regarding this thread that I believe are more than incidental to the assassination. But that is just my opinion.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a controversy regarding Fowler Hamilton's appointment as a potential successor to Allen Dulles, but if you accept Robert Kennedy's explanation, it is probably not for the reason you might think. In the interview with John Bartlow Martin, after mentioning JFK's desire for Bobby to head the CIA, which was determined to be too controversial, they take the point up.

In Robert F. Kennedy - In His Own Words p. 253 (Milo) Fowler Hamilton.....

MARTIN: Fowler Hamilton became head of AID.

RFK: It centered on Fowler Hamilton. I spoke to him tentatively about becoming head of CIA. Everybody had spoken

well of him and thought that he had gotten very high marks. Then we found in some papers that had been uncovered- -

he'd worked in the Second World War in some capacity -- in a code that had been broken in the Second World War,

that there was a Russian spy, somebody working in the same department as he, who was delivering important

information to the Communists, He was close enough to Fowler Hamilton that at least one person on the British side

had thought that the information had come from Fowler Hamilton. Actually, investigating and looking into it deeply,

I was convinced that it had not. He wasn't involved at all. But the British had the information. If there was somebody

over there in an important position who thought so and they had to work closely together, it might even infect the relationship.

Robert: Anyone who knows about the spy versus spy world of counterintelligence knows of James (Jesus) Angleton

and the whole paranoid era, would realize that not only the British aspect would have been an issue but James Angleton

himself would have been another fly in the ointment to deal with, and he already was scandalized by JFK's policies

regarding the dynamic of the Kennedy Administration's foreign policy with regards to Italy;

David C. Martin quoted Tom McCoy, [William] Colby's deputy in Rome as stating. "We were supporting and engaged in operations with some left-wing elements that Angleton held highly suspect because his police [carabinieri] friends held them suspect"

see Wilderness of Mirrors p 184.

McCoy went on to state that Angleton considered Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the Soviet mole who tipped off the Soviets

about the Bay of Pigs.

Outstanding, Robert, precisely the kind of material I’d long hoped to find, and despaired of ever doing.

So now we know: JFK's first choice to supplant AWD was scuppered by a classic Angletonian sliming.

I wonder (aloud) how the scupper-Hamilton-for-DCI operation ran? Was Ray Rocca hastily dispatched to unearth anything remotely useful in his voluminous Rote Kapelle notes? Were the Venona decrypts interrogated in search of a link, no matter how tenuous? The Amerasia archives thrown open in the desperate hunt for a usable morsel?

Or was something simply invented & fed to Golitsyn, for conveyance to MI5’s Arthur Martin, who would in turn contact MI6’s Dick White with his non-discovery “discovery,” all amidst dark mutterings of a potential breakdown in the “special relationship”? And then, via the appalling White, to the FO, re-landing on US shores in the private bag of Ormsby-Gore?

This is, after all, how the clique worked, not least in Dallas in late November 1963.

Sincere thanks again - and keep it coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a controversy regarding Fowler Hamilton's appointment as a potential successor to Allen Dulles, but if you accept Robert Kennedy's explanation, it is probably not for the reason you might think. In the interview with John Bartlow Martin, after mentioning JFK's desire for Bobby to head the CIA, which was determined to be too controversial, they take the point up.

In Robert F. Kennedy - In His Own Words p. 253 (Milo) Fowler Hamilton.....

MARTIN: Fowler Hamilton became head of AID.

RFK: It centered on Fowler Hamilton. I spoke to him tentatively about becoming head of CIA. Everybody had spoken

well of him and thought that he had gotten very high marks. Then we found in some papers that had been uncovered- -

he'd worked in the Second World War in some capacity -- in a code that had been broken in the Second World War,

that there was a Russian spy, somebody working in the same department as he, who was delivering important

information to the Communists, He was close enough to Fowler Hamilton that at least one person on the British side

had thought that the information had come from Fowler Hamilton. Actually, investigating and looking into it deeply,

I was convinced that it had not. He wasn't involved at all. But the British had the information. If there was somebody

over there in an important position who thought so and they had to work closely together, it might even infect the relationship.

Robert: Anyone who knows about the spy versus spy world of counterintelligence knows of James (Jesus) Angleton

and the whole paranoid era, would realize that not only the British aspect would have been an issue but James Angleton

himself would have been another fly in the ointment to deal with, and he already was scandalized by JFK's policies

regarding the dynamic of the Kennedy Administration's foreign policy with regards to Italy;

David C. Martin quoted Tom McCoy, [William] Colby's deputy in Rome as stating. "We were supporting and engaged in operations with some left-wing elements that Angleton held highly suspect because his police [carabinieri] friends held them suspect"

see Wilderness of Mirrors p 184.

McCoy went on to state that Angleton considered Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the Soviet mole who tipped off the Soviets

about the Bay of Pigs.

What is really enlightening about all of this is the information I've posted is only about half of the story; but you will have to read pps. 269-271 of The Ordeal of Otto Otepka, to get the other half see

Seymour Judson Janow.....

Gill's tome goes a long way toward convincing the layman or uninitiated of the JFK Assassination that the

JFK Administration was "secretly appointing Communist's and Communist sympathizers to his administration," as such, it is still a very valuable book to the politically correct view regarding the assassination.

------------

Robert interesting re Italy . I had heard about this difference between Angleton and Colby before, or at least as Colby put it out . Colby connected Claire Booth Luce in his suspicion that Ms. Paint-Chip- LSD- Cuban- Speed Boat-Luce.... Dramatist herselves was involved with Angleton in going round his (Colby's back) after Colby had replaced her in Italy in 56 I think was the year. The difference was over whether a socialist Christian Democrat coalition could serve the same NATO interests as the earlier Christian Dem-with Catholic Action and further right parties had earlier, now that the latter was no longer feasible.

These advocates were probably also trying to better isolate the Communists on a split in the communists.

Nevertheless, It is very easy to imagine 9 thirds of Washington freaking out just by hearing the word socialist in such a coalition. I wonder what Clare was saying about Italy in 1963. And to whom.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

moreover... just found this in Paul Ginsborg A History of contemporary Italy Society and Politics 1943-1988

"However,as in the immediate post-war period, American diplomacy did not speak to Italy with a single voice. At the State Department Dean Rusk remained skeptical of the benefits that would accrue to the United States if the PSI joined the government. He favored a policy of strict neutrality, as did the the US ambassador at Rome, Frederick R. Reinhardt.

Within the American embassy at Rome there were those who expressed extreme opposition to making any concessions to the Italian Socialists. In a meeting of November 1961, Vernon Walter, the military attache , advocated armed intervention should a centre-left government be formed. He was Supported by members of the CIA office in Rome, including Karamessines, who was later to play an important background role in the Greek military coup10 [and Brazil coup and Watergate coup??? Funny How Vernon Moves Around!! Volume 8iii, NH] Check out Ginsberg's footnote 11 though...

11".... Kennedy visited Italy from 30 June to 2 July 1963, and at that stage made his support for the centre-left quite explicit. For an entertaining account of the visit, base on the American documents and CIA bugging, Faeneza, Il malaffare, pp. 352-8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I appreciate the kind remarks, and to Mike Rago, my view is that an outlook towards the Kennedy Assassination that is traced to the Soviet Union, the Cuban's or Oswald acting alone, is the politically correct view, ironically, it is also the most easily debunked.

Nathaniel it is funny that you would specifically mention Italy, as the last book I read was Wilderness of Mirrors by James C. Martin, if there was ever an aptly titled book, that would be close, or at the top of the list. On that note Bill Harvey was the Station Chief in Italy when JFK was assassinated, inebriated if I have it right, Angleton and Harvey are diametric opposites in many ways, Harvey picked up on Kim Philby true colors years before anyone, Angleton was on the other side of the fence. Angelo Bruno was coming back from Italy when he was arrested literally coming off the boat, after JFK was assassinated. I believe there is a deeper explanation for Angleton's eccentric behavior regarding coddling Anatoli Golitsin, while it was because of Golitsin, more or less that Nosenko was suspect from the beginning, at least with regards to Angleton. When Colby dismissed Angleton, it was I believe Claire Petty's report [said to have been 1,000 pages and edited down to less than 500] that was the straw that broke the camel's back for Angleton's career. In it Petty, adduced that if anyone was a mole for the Soviet's it was Angleton himself, I have read Kim Philby's biography and there was nothing particularly enlightening, Even though Colby fired Angleton, he, according to David C. Martin, did not believe Angleton was a mole, but Angleton definitely, went off the deep end.

I am still trying to fathom all that 'Soviet defector' dynamic in its relation to Angleton, if you don't believe he was a Soviet penetration into CIA's Soviet counterintelligence, which I don't, I don't think its possible to think of another angle without looking at Angleton's relationship with the Israeli's.

The only problem for me is that I don't believe JFK's enemies needed the nation of Israel's help to do away with JFK. I know all about Israel and their work on the atomic bomb, and how LBJ modified the United States policy toward Israel after JFK's death. Gratefully, my opinion doesn't really matter one way or the other, on that issue, and to tell the truth, I am kind of glad.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its possible to think of another angle without looking at Angleton's relationship with the Israeli's.

The only problem for me is that I don't believe JFK's enemies needed the nation of Israel's help to do away with JFK. I know all about Israel and their work on the atomic bomb, and how LBJ modified the United States policy toward Israel after JFK's death. Gratefully, my opinion doesn't really matter one way or the other, on that issue, and to tell the truth, I am kind of glad.

You do not think that Israel had a strong enough motive all on their own? John Kennedy was demanding inspections of the Dimona nuclear plant to ensure it was devoted entirely to peaceful purposes.

I am not really sure what you are saying in that statement. Are you saying it is better to just look the other way?

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really like having to respond to what I consider baiting type comments, there is no deeper meaning to what I said, than what I said, which is, the enemies of JFK did not need the nation of Israel's help to pull off the assassination. I certainly am not suggesting that Israel didn't have a motive to want JFK killed, and I am most certainly not suggesting that researchers "look the other way,"

My outlook in general towards the assassination, is that a lot of people look at "a single group" as being behind the assasination, when in reality it is a little more complicated than that. Having said that, I certainly think there is an Israeli angle, as in some link insofar as connections, but by that I mean certain people, but not the Mossad, in a singular manner. You might also do well to not take such an in your face approach to posting here, it might make you feel good, but in the end you will just alienate yourself, which I think you are already doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My outlook in general towards the assassination, is that a lot of people look at "a single group" as being behind the assasination, when in reality it is a little more complicated than that. Having said that, I certainly think there is an Israeli angle, as in some link insofar as connections, but by that I mean certain people, but not the Mossad, in a singular manner. You might also do well to not take such an in your face approach to posting here, it might make you feel good, but in the end you will just alienate yourself, which I think you are already doing.

I looked up "in your face" attitude. Here is what I found

"having or showing a bold forcefulness in the pursuit of a goal<an in-your-face attitude that sometimes puts people off"

I will try to take a less assertive manner and take your advice.

Robert again you make a comment which I do not understand. You say you certainly think there is an Isreali angle but by that you mean certain people and not the Mossad in a singular manner.

Edited by Mike Rago
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...