Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

Invisible government?

What "invisible" government?

Y'all been drinking too much of that Evica/Drago False Mystery Kool-Aid, if you ask me.

On September 15, 1959, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev landed in Washington DC on the first stop of a two week tour
of the States.

The next day he showed up at W. Averell Harriman's pad in Manhattan.

From Spanning the Century The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson, pg. 575

<quote on>

In his second-floor drawing room, Harriman gathered leaders from mining, manufacturing, oil, chemicals, banking,
and insurance industries, including John D. Rockefeller III; General David Sarnoff, chairman of RCA; Frank Pace,
chairman of General Dynamics Corporation; W. Alton Jones, chairman of Cities Service Corporation; and John J. McCloy,
chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. By his estimate, scribbled on a yellow legal pad before Khrushchev arrived, they
represented assets of some $38 billion. Among them, as witnesses to history, were a few men of ordinary means,
former ambassadors, educators, and, notably, Rockefeller Foundation president Dean Rusk, and Harvard economist
John Kenneth Galbraith, the latter having invited himself as a "representative of the proletariat."

Surround by Picassos and Derains, their voices muffled by Persian carpets, the capitalist Titans greeted the Communist
chieftain one by one, then sat in a semi-circle savoring caviar and sipping champagne and New York wine as Averell
conducted his exposition of capitalism, war profits, and American politics. No one present, nor any of their friends,
he and the others assured the guest of honor, favored world tensions. The assembled war profiteers, said the host, were
men who'd champion disarmament the moment it became safe for the United States. There was not a hint, however, that
mingling with the millionaires did anything except reinforce Khrushchev's belief that he was then in the presence of the
men who controlled America far more than Eisenhower and the members of Congress he had met in Washington.

One testimonial to free enterprise followed another. And when the Soviet leader reasserted his stubborn belief that the
men present composed the country's ruling circle, Galbraith later tattled, "Somebody demurred, but in perfunctory fashion."
After it was over, Harriman insisted that the Soviet leader had gained insights of "real importance."

<quote off>

Note the heavy Rockefeller presence.

Johnny D 3, John McCloy, Dean Rusk.

Who pushed the button on Kennedy?

Ave Harriman and Johnny D 3, looks like to me.



Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim, Cliff, the firing of A. Dulles and C. Cabell actually gave them the time and space to plan the assassination of JFK in minute detail. So, maybe it was a mistake to fire them- JFK perhaps should have kept them closer to him to keep tabs on them. What is that line in the "Godfather" -- keep your enemies close to you?

You best believe it!

Where did the suddenly homeless Jackie Kennedy spend the night 11/22/63?

Averell Harriman's pad in Georgetown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff @ #31

The meeting you describe is unremarkable, given the time, but fascinating nonetheless.

Top-tier capitalists vs. Soviet ruler. The capitalists only wanted to make money. Khruschev knew that. The issue was, how can we get what we both want? It wasn't politics. Khruschev had only one card -- sorry, two cards. One card was nukes. The other was wars of national liberation. The capitalists saw a way to make money: fighting wars of national liberation. Deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff @ #31

The meeting you describe is unremarkable, given the time, but fascinating nonetheless.

Top-tier capitalists vs. Soviet ruler. The capitalists only wanted to make money. Khruschev knew that. The issue was, how can we get what we both want? It wasn't politics. Khruschev had only one card -- sorry, two cards. One card was nukes. The other was wars of national liberation. The capitalists saw a way to make money: fighting wars of national liberation. Deal.

It's a snap shot of the Military Industrial Complex star chamber.

It's not a model of something -- it's history with names and resumes, not empty categories of sponsor/facilitator/mechanic.

Who was running the show and who was the star American guest?

Ave Harriman the former, John D. Rockefeller III the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff - even though I agree with you to some extent, I think it is too pat and simplistic to name Harriman and Rockefeller as literally giving orders to Dulles. Why set up an argument about who ordered who?

And since you mention all the Bonesmen and the elite, where do you put the Bushes in your hierarchy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, let me add one more thing to this whole Dulles vs. Kennedy conflict.

When Dulles saw that the Kennedys were not going to let him off the hook for his deliberate lying to the president (RFK's presence on the Taylor Commission guaranteed that), he prepared a fallback plan. Knowing the commission proceedings would be classified for some time, he decided to get out his cover story first.

He did it ostensibly through a reporter for Fortune named Charles Murphy. But the man who actually wrote the story for Murphy was Howard Hunt. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 46) In this article, called "To Set the Record Straight" (what a misnomer) Hunt and Dulles planted two memes about Kennedy that were quite pernicious. First, this is where the whole myth of the cancelled D Day air strikes began! In other words since Kennedy had figured out that the operation was planned to fail, Dulles reversed that verdict and blamed the disaster on JFK! I mean, does it get worse than that? Because, as Kirkpatrick argued in his report, so what if the airstrikes had been executed? Castro had his cannon and mortar and tanks on the beach within ten hours. Because he knew the invasion was coming. Castro had an army of 35, 000 regulars with about 200,000 reserves. As any military strategist will tell you, in an amphibious assault, the attackers have to outnumber the defenders. This was the opposite. Having read Kirkpatrick's report, RFK pummeled Dulles with that specific question. (p. 42) And it was clearly RFK's disbelief that Dulles could buy into such a proposition that made him think it was all a CIA manufactured illusion. Along with the fact that Dulles' other excuse, "Well, they could go guerrilla if the beachhead failed", this was also BS.

Why?

Because although Kennedy had been told this was a contingency, when the Taylor Commission interviewed the Cubans, they found out that not only did they get no guerrilla training, they were never told of the contingency in the first place! (ibid, p. 43) The exposure of this lie nailed the coffin shut for Dulles, Bissell and Cabell. And this is why Dulles had to get out a cover story.

But secondly, the Hunt/Murphy article also said that Kennedy was naive about the communist threat, and he was listening to the wrong people both in the White House and abroad e.g. Schlesinger, Goodwin, Harold McMillan. And he had now put at risk, not just Cuba, but Indochina. (ibid, p. 54)

It was this article, pure Black Propaganda, that alienated both the elites, and the Cubans against Kennedy. Kennedy was so angry when he read it that--unaware of who was really behind it-- he stripped Murphy of his Air Force reserve status. But Murphy told Ed Lansdale that he did not really mind that sacrifice, since his allegiance was not to Kennedy but to Allen Dulles. (ibid, p. 46) It was not until I read that letter to Lansdale that I realized just how enthroned and aggrandized Dulles was among the Eastern Establsihment. But that is how they thought of him, above the president.

And we know, of course, what Dulles though of JFK: "That little Kennedy, he thought he was a god!" (ibid, p. 34)

No Allen, he just thought he was president.

PS I am absolutely frazzled by the comparison of the assassination of JFK to the Tate/ LaBianca murders, and even moreso by the goofy idea that Atkins was the ringleader.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Talbot is a journalist. Which means when he writes something, he gathers facts; the facts form a story; the story has a beginning, a middle, and a conclusion. Fine.

If one looks at Talbot's online Salon website, one finds some useful information. What one finds primarily is bias in the writing of Salon pieces. Which is also OK. I'm able to digest bias.

Bias is anathema to a truth teller. David Talbot has a bent toward bias.

Fine, so do all historians.

So count me a skeptic.

David Talbot is a journalist. Which means when he writes something, he gathers facts; the facts form a story; the story has a beginning, a middle, and a conclusion. Fine. Unfortunately it, too often, is 'his' story, 'his' beginning, 'his' ending. Truth is not a requirement for journalists.

Count me a skeptic also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KD: Unfortunately it, too often, is 'his' story, 'his' beginning, 'his' ending. Truth is not a requirement for journalists.

Count me a skeptic also.

Wow.
That is being fair isn't it? The book isn't even out yet.
Further, Talbot has a track record in that his previous book about the case, Brothers, was an overall respectable effort, which was actually a milestone in the field. Its thinking like this that makes me wonder about the so called serious people in the community.
Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck:

Let us not forget, in addition to the Cabell connection, Dulles was in Dallas about a month before the assassination. And he joked about this, plus the fact of his relationship with Mary Bancroft, which put him about two degrees away from Ruth and Michael Paine. You know those two sweet, innocent Good Samaritan types who went into overdrive to try and convict Oswald within hours after the murder.

I forgot one more point: Dulles' special visit to Truman--while sitting on the Warren Commission--trying to get him to retract his editorial in the Post about how the CIA had seemed to have gone rogue of late. Truman started writing that editorial about a week after the assassination.

In the materials given to me by Ray Marcus from the Truman Library, it is apparent that Dulles thought the article was written owing to Truman's suspicions that somehow the CIA was involved in Kennedy's murder. And one step beyond that, he also thought that Truman suspected Vietnam was a big motive in the assassination. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pgs. 378-81) I am really surprised that more people have not picked up on this point.

I mean how incriminating is incriminating.

I'd give Truman credit for his knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Jesus Angleton and The Warren Commission

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/james-jesus-angleton-and-the-warren-commission/

video >>>>> https://vimeo.com/123522731

Check out this interesting lecture/power point presentation by Lisa Pease on James Jesus Angleton and The Warren Commission. Angelton was chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) counter-intelligence (CI) staff, Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counter-Intelligence/ADDOCI.

Pease also has a two part detailed analysis of the topic here and here.

She alludes to the crucial relationship between the CIA and the media (Operation Mockingbird) when discussing Angelton’s Machiavellian nexus of covert and overt of influence within and without the Agency. Speculation regarding Angelton’s ongoing critical involvement with intelligence asset Lee Harvey Oswald years before the brutal murder and coup d’état of President John F. Kennedy on the November 22, 1963 by the top echelon of the National Security State, and his subsequent relationship with the Warren Commission, has intrigued researchers and historians.

For over five decades we have lived in the opaque shadows created by Angelton’s wilderness of mirrors regarding these matters. Perhaps we will soon find some definitive resolution to many of these questions in David Tabot’s eagerly awaited, forthcoming book, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government, slated for release October 13, 2015.

7:10 pm on August 23, 2015
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS I am absolutely frazzled by the comparison of the assassination of JFK to the Tate/ LaBianca murders, and even moreso by the goofy idea that Atkins was the ringleader.

I don't think "ringleader" applies to the Manson Family.

The whole thing about copy-cat killings to divert suspicion from Bobby Beausoleil for the Hinman killing was her idea, chances are.

Charles Manson was a failure at everything he did -- with one exception. He had a way with women.

Total screw-ups make for piss-poor "ringleaders."

Susan Atkins came away from Hinman's apartment with a blood lust that led to Sharon Tate's fate.

Charlie wasn't the one making blood-graffitti -- that was Atkins.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff - even though I agree with you to some extent, I think it is too pat and simplistic to name Harriman and Rockefeller as literally giving orders to Dulles.

I think there was a lot of disagreement within the Eastern Elite about Dulles.

Yankees like Robert Lovett and David Bruce (and Joe Kennedy) didn't like the cowboy ways of Dulles' covert ops.

I think Harriman was in the Dulles camp. Those cowboys were more likely Harriman's private army.

Why set up an argument about who ordered who?

Gets to the motivation of the crime.

Did Dulles seek revenge for getting canned over the BOP?

Or was it about a smack pipeline from SE Asia to Havana to the U.S and beyond which required the deaths of Diem, Kennedy and Castro?

And since you mention all the Bonesmen and the elite, where do you put the Bushes in your hierarchy ?

Who did Prescott Bush work for?

Brown Brothers Harriman.

Who did Gen. Smedley Butler say the US military was employed by?

Brown Brothers Harriman...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff:

I don't agree, but that is not the point.

This particular thread is about the upcoming Talbot book. OK?

Let us keep it that way.

Spare me.

Don't throw words like "goofy" around if you don't expect a response.

"Contempt prior to investigation."

Oh my, so much of that going around these days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I won't spare you. This thread is about its title.

It should be kept that way.

If you or Greg want to open up one entitled, say "Parallels between JFK murder and Tate/LaBianca case", do so.

As for your ideas about Atkins, having read about five books on that case, and talked to more than one authority, I can tell you that your ideas on her are, to put it mildly, out there.

And that is the last word I will write on that in this thread.

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...