David Talbot: Allen Dulles, CIA and Rise of America's Secret Government

[James DiEugenio]

This is really disgusting, but its predictable.

Talbot has worked in the MSM and he then founded one of the very best online magazines in Salon.

Brothers was acceptable to the MSM since it only stated that RFK believed JFK was killed by a conspiracy. And its OK to speculate in the MSM that maybe the WC was wrong.

But here, in this book, Talbot has gone beyond that. Now he is actually pointing the finger at a suspect who was at a high-level in the government in 1961. And he is making a pretty sound case for him being involved. That is a no no. You can say the Mafia did it and get TV face time. You can say Castro did it and get CBS on your side. But once you say it was an inside job, forget it.

So therefore, the gatekeepers are now shutting the doors in some instances, where they were open for Brothers.

​Unlike with Brothers, they will not let this on the NY Times bestseller list. Even though its doing fairly well on its own.

Edited October 18, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Larry Hancock]

I gather this is the Glenn Altschuler David is referring to:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Glenn+Altschuler

Regardless of his credentials, its pretty clear that once you move even slightly over the line in regard to conspiracy, you do become tainted in the academic circles which Altschuler represents. Actually it does not take a lot of work to corroborate at least a CIA interest in and intelligence connection to the anti-de Gaulle forces circa 1963. Certainly James Angleton was heavily involved with their representatives and the CIA arranged for travel for at least one of their senior representatives to the United States, where he pitched Soviet penetration of the French government and argued for US involvement against the de Gaulle regime as an anti-Communist imperative. I found the CIA documents on that as well as Angleton's personal involvement and wrote about them years ago.

I also share Talbot's pain in regard to the media, obviously his media connections are far better than mine and his publisher is a major force, but with regard to Surprise Attack we (myself and my publishers PR folks) have found a far greater push back against revelations in regard to the Bush Administration and 9/11, about Benghazi and about contemporary CIA covert operations than I encountered with my earlier books - and I only explore gross negligence, obfuscation, perjury and failed CIA operations, not even heavy duty conspiracy. It's as if once the MSM and academia establishes a story line, they really don't want to hear anything further about it, at least anything contrary.

Of course just after I wrote this comment I found the following conspiracy article by the New York Times - which suggests that some of the MSM does love conspiracy stories, but perhaps only ones which fit a particular editorial guideline. Strange days indeed.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/opinions/bergen-new-york-times-bin-laden-death/index.html

Edited October 18, 2015 by Larry Hancock

[James DiEugenio]

Larry, its even worse than that.

The stuff about the CIA friendliness with the OAS attempts to overthrow DeGaulle over Algeria is in Andrew Tully's book, CIA: The Inside Story. Which was published way back in 1962. But further, Tully was seen as a CIA/friendly author!

Its to Talbot's credit that he went way beyond what is in that book. And by using a multiplicity of sources, he puts together a really gripping story that I was largely not aware of. This includes Kennedy's alarm over the CIA's involvement in the coup when he was told of it by the French Ambassador. Kennedy then told him that he could not ensure he could stop such a thing since the CIA was a very large, powerful and secretive organization.

This is all in aid of one of Talbot's major themes: that Dulles would conduct his own foreign policy without telling the president. And its this move toward the OAS, along with the exposure of Dulles' perfidy in the Bay of Pigs, that sealed his fate with JFK.

And BTW, before someone says, "But Dulles was out of the CIA in 1962." That means you have not read the book. Another triumph of the volume is that Talbot proves--by Dulles' own notes--that he was conducting meetings with high level CIA officers, including Angleton, way after Kennedy fired him. In fact, from the frequency of the meetings, I would venture that he saw more of these guys than McCone did.

Edited October 19, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Larry Hancock]

My general impression is that John and Alan essentially defined what they felt American international policy should be and John pitched it to Eisenhower - who would then just give a head nod. But as you say, in the event that Ike could not be persuaded to give an obvious head nod, the Dulles brothers and later Alan on his own never hesitated to move ahead with what they felt to be in the best interests of the nation - which of course was also in the best interest of the nation's economic powers. That old line about what is good for General Motors being good for the country was a pretty insightful comedy. After studying Eisenhower and covert operations I would say that he was far more willing to give that head nod than I would have imagined living during his administration. If Ike could sell something to the public or Congress he was happy to act overtly, if not he had no qualms in going covert and did so on an ever increasing basis.

I certainly think Talbot's theme of showing how Alan continued to try and drive policy and operations, even as a private citizen, is right on the money. People with that degree of hubris and history of power just don't throw it all away in a week or so and decide to take up fishing full time.

[Martin Blank]

that dutt guy was psychic

[Douglas Caddy]

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today:

Saw "Bridge of Spies" yesterday, the new Spielberg-Hanks take on the Cold War (one resolute American takes on the CIA, Soviet power and wins the day). Filled with the usual American sentimentalism of this Hollywood duo, but it features the always brilliant acting of Mark Rylance. And it does spotlight a true American hero -- a lawyer named James Donovan who was tapped by the Kennedy administration to negotiate the release of downed U2 pilot Francis Gary Powers. Dulles, btw, makes a brief but appropriately chilling appearance in the film. But strangely JFK's central role in this affair is completely ignored. The filmmakers obviously wanted to sell the idea that in true High Noon fashion, it was just Donovan against the world, instead of someone acting as the envoy of a president who was increasingly eager to find a way out of the Cold War by negotiating with our enemies.

Speaking of which, Donovan's equally dramatic negotiations with Castro to release the some 1,100 Bay of Pigs prisoners is briefly referred to at the end of the film. But in some ways, as I write about in my book "Brothers," this episode of his diplomatic career was even more intense. Donovan, who had the Irish love of drink and gab, formed a jovial relationship with the voluble Castro over their lengthy, late-night negotiations. But the CIA was not happy about JFK and Donovan's peace efforts in Cuba. At one point, the agency arranged to have a poisoned wet suit manufactured in its death lab and given to Donovan before one of his trips to Havana. The CIA planned to have Donovan, who was completely unaware of the CIA's assassination plot, deliver the wet suit to Castro as a gift. Donovan the peacemaker would have then unwittingly been turned into an agent of death. But either the toxins in the poisoned wet suit failed to do the job, or Donovan delivered the wrong wet suit. In any case, Donovan's peace mission to Cuba ended when JFK himself was killed in Dallas.

[Douglas Caddy]

The Deep State and the Hughes-Nixon-Lansky Connection
By Charles Burris
October 19, 2015

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/charles-burris/the-deep-state-3/

[Douglas Caddy]

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today (10/19/15):

Dan Rather -- who knows a thing or two about the pitfalls of telling the truth (see the new movie where he's played by Robert Redford) -- just sent this endorsement of my book "Devil's Chessboard" via my publisher:
"David Talbot has scored again with an important, good read."
Thanks, Dan, much appreciated.

[James DiEugenio]

Wow, Dan Rather?!

[Glenn Nall]

The question I have is -- Did Robert Lovett & Joe Kennedy have the motive, means and opportunity to sabotage the Bay of Pigs to provide a rationale for Dulles' eventual dismissal?

I hope you're joking.

i think (I hope) i'm hearing you asking the same question that came to my mind - not so much that they had the motive, means and opportunity to sabotage Zapata, but were they actually WILLING to let so many men die just to screw Dulles?

Ok, i can see the powers that be fixing the BOPs job, for national interests, or even financial interests - but just to do in a piece of sh== like Dulles?

say it ain't so, Rocky!!!

[Glenn Nall]

Wow, Dan Rather?!

my thought exactly. maybe now that he's well retired he's not so beholden to Propaganda.

I can't remember when he actually told a complete truth. so, Yay, congrats on the plug - regardless of his character, he in fact carries some extreme weight.

[Chris Newton]

I did a search on Huffington Post for couple of keywords, "David Talbot", "Allen Dulles", etc. No mention of this new book at all. Has huffpost become part of the MSM too? I've noticed a marked tendency for them to be soft on every story that outside of "dem mainstream". Disappointed.

[Karl Kinaski]

In 1943 for Dulles Adolf Hitler was a great US-asset:

Maybe in April 1961 for Dulles (and his cronies) JFK was no great US asset anymore...

KK

[Dawn Meredith]

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today (10/19/15):

Dan Rather -- who knows a thing or two about the pitfalls of telling the truth (see the new movie where he's played by Robert Redford) -- just sent this endorsement of my book "Devil's Chessboard" via my publisher:

"David Talbot has scored again with an important, good read."

Thanks, Dan, much appreciated.

Ya, but did the sob actually READ the book? Is he ready to stop lying about the assassination of JFK, on which he built his career? I will take him seriously when that happens, but not holding my breath. "Truth" indeed.

[Glenn Nall]

just a little FWIW:

"Robert Redford and Cate Blanchett gushed over disgraced journalists Dan Rather and Mary Mapes on Monday's New Day on CNN. Michaela Pereira interviewed the Oscar winners about their new film, Truth, which is adaptation of Mapes's account of the Memogate scandal. Redford underlined that the apparent loyalty between Rather and Mapes "made a big impression on me." Blanchett hyped that "they're both compelling, fascinating, vital, intelligent, hilarious people."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matthew-balan/2015/10/19/cnn-cate-blanchett-praises-intelligent-hilarious-dan-rather