Why Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong

[James DiEugenio]

Chip Berlet is not an ultra liberal.

His specialty, as Jeff noted above, was to go after people who were and who backed controversial causes, like the JFK case.

 

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Chip Berlet is not an ultra liberal.

His specialty, as Jeff noted above, was to go after people who were and who backed controversial causes, like the JFK case.

Eee-gads. Chip Berlet most certainly is an ultra-liberal, and it is astonishing that you would deny this. You and Jeff don't consider him an ultra-liberal because he has exposed Fletcher Prouty as a fraud and a crackpot and because he accepts the lone-gunman theory. Similarly, it is erroneous to claim that Berlet's specialty is to "go after people" who back "controversial causes, like the JFK case." 

In point of fact, Berlet has spent most of his career studying and exposing extreme right-wing groups. He's a former vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, for crying out loud, and he has worked in support of the ACLU, AIM, and even the Socialist Workers Party. For more information on Berlet's stainless, undeniable left-wing credentials, see the Wikipedia article on him.

It is troubling that you would get on a public board and make these comments about Berlet. You do this because you refuse to admit the truth about Fletcher Prouty.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Mark Knight]

On 4/17/2023 at 11:33 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Michael Griffith - you WILL find people who are not anti-semitic who are very critical of Israel, like myself and many of my Jewish friends. You seem to conflate the two positions.

Count me among those people.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Count me among those people.

Me too.

[Michael Griffith]

On 4/17/2023 at 10:42 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Michael,

      Instead of continuing to highjack this thread with your John McAdams-type, defamatory nonsense about Prouty, how about answering a few questions for us?

     Who paid for your stint at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California?  Was it part of your military service in the USAF?

     What do you do for a living in McLean, Virginia, when you're not posting lengthy diatribes on the Education Forum denying that JFK intended to get out of Vietnam in 1963, and falsely impugning Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's reputation?

     Also, I haven't visited the area for many years, but isn't McLean close to Langley?

I fear I've been a bit too sarcastic with you. On the off chance that you will take my failure to respond to your accusations about my background as proof that I have something to hide, I will address your questions.

One, I've talked many times in this forum about my attendance at the Defense Language Institute (DLI). Leslie can verify this, as can several others. Or, you can do a forum search and find the many posts where I talked about my time at DLI. 

Two, I was not in the USAF (U.S. Air Force). I was in the Army. Perhaps you thought I was in the Air Force because I attended the U.S. Air Force Technical Training school, but that school was where all the Services sent personnel for that kind of technical training.

Three, I don't live anywhere near McLean, Virginia, and have never had any association with the CIA.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

I fear I've been a bit too sarcastic with you. On the off chance that you will take my failure to respond to your accusations about my background as proof that I have something to hide, I will address your questions.

One, I've talked many times in this forum about my attendance at the Defense Language Institute (DLI). Leslie can verify this, as can several others. Or, you can do a forum search and find the many posts where I talked about my time at DLI. 

Two, I was not in the USAF (U.S. Air Force). I was in the Army. Perhaps you thought I was in the Air Force because I attended the U.S. Air Force Technical Training school, but that school was where all the Services sent personnel for that kind of technical training.

Three, I don't live anywhere near McLean, Virginia, and have never had any association with the CIA.

 

Thanks for sharing.

Do you mind mentioning what you do for a living?

I notice that you have written some history book(s) and have a website.

You're also a Civil War buff, which is interesting.

A lot of the people on this forum are older retired folks with free time on their hands, but you appear fairly young in your forum photo.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Last graph from Berlet wiki:

Laird Wilcox in Who Watches the Watchmen? has criticized Berlet and other writers for what Wilcox says is their use of a technique he describes as "Links and Ties," which he says is a form of guilt by association.^[23][24] Jack Z. Bratich, an associate professor in the Journalism and Media Studies Department at Rutgers University, says that Berlet himself uses the methods of conspiracy theorists.^[25]

[Michael Griffith]

58 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Thanks for sharing.

Do you mind mentioning what you do for a living?

I notice that you have written some history book(s) and have a website.

You're also a Civil War buff, which is interesting.

A lot of the people on this forum are older retired folks with free time on their hands, but you appear fairly young in your forum photo.

I work as a technical editor in a job that deals with air and missile defense. I won't be one of those lucky people who are retired and have lots of free time on their hands for at least another five years. 

I used to be a Civil War buff, but I lost interest in the subject about three or four years ago. I still maintain my Civil War-related websites (one on Lincoln and the other on McClellan), but I'm not active on the subject anymore. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Chip Berlet is not an ultra liberal.

His specialty, as Jeff noted above, was to go after people who were and who backed controversial causes, like the JFK case.

 

Chip Berlet's cover blurb for Coup in Dallas: The Decisive Investigation into Who Killed JFK by H. P. Albarelli Jr. with Leslie Sharp and Alan Kent reads, 

“When respected investigative journalists raise questions about political and social forces that gained substantial power advantages following the assassination of JFK, their work should not be dismissed lightly. Using an academic perspective, this compelling study examines the forces that likely influenced the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. If you believed that Kennedy was a traitor, then his assassination becomes an act of patriotism. Earlier forms of reactionary information systems, substantially (but not exclusively) on the political right, identified him as such, and as a threat to democracy. Decades later, the same forces motivated the insurgents that stormed the US Capitol in defense of the 45th president demanding a second term. As presented in Coup in Dallas, a similar network of conspiracist rightist mindset provided the script of liberal treason and betrayal that prompted the assassination of President Kennedy.”
—Chip Berlet, editor of The Assassination Please Almanac, author of Eyes Right!, coauthor of Right-Wing Populism in America
 @Michael Griffin

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

On 4/17/2023 at 3:53 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Huh, Griffith?  What additional bunk are you spewing now?

It's a shame that Leslie Sharp, or anyone on this forum, still takes your disinformation seriously.

"Deranged claims by 9/11 Truthers?"  Are you referring to the scientific data of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

Do tell us what is "deranged" about their scientific data. 

Have you ever studied the academic credentials of the many scholars, scientists, and engineers involved in the 9/11 Truth movement?

What is it about the free fall collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 that you still don't understand?

What abruptly demolished the steel sub-structures of the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11, allowing the steel towers to rapidly crumble to the ground at a rate approximating the acceleration of gravity?

 

 

 

W. I'm not sure what disinformation you're referring to?
 
The question is whether Col. Prouty was ideologically aligned with Willis Carto or did he simply avail of the venue the Liberty Lobby provided? Was Spotlight the only publisher willing to advance his revelations? Did the ends justify the means?

Our interest was in Carto's direct association with General Edwin Walker.

[Michael Griffith]

I will simply repeat the self-evident point that if a lone-gunman theorist had closely associated with Holocaust deniers and other far-right extremists the way Prouty did, had defended Scientology and Ron Hubbard the way Prouty did, had made the kinds of bizarre claims that Prouty did (Princess Diana, FDR's death, Iron Mountain, etc.), and had so markedly back-peddled on several of his key longtime JFKA claims when questioned by a federal board, nobody in this thread would make any excuses for him but would justifiably reject him as a credible source.

[W. Niederhut]

11 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Chip Berlet's cover blurb for Coup in Dallas: The Decisive Investigation into Who Killed JFK by H. P. Albarelli Jr. with Leslie Sharp and Alan Kent reads, 

“When respected investigative journalists raise questions about political and social forces that gained substantial power advantages following the assassination of JFK, their work should not be dismissed lightly. 
—Chip Berlet, editor of The Assassination Please Almanac, author of Eyes Right!, coauthor of Right-Wing Populism in America
 @Michael Griffin

 

How ironic that Prouty critic Chip Berlet finally agrees-- after all these years-- with Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's original claims about Deep State motives for JFK's murder.

So much for the oft-repeated disinformation about Prouty being a right wing fascist, anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, etc., etc.

Leslie, have you and Michael Griffith studied Prouty's original commentary about NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 in his book about JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam?

He was way ahead of the curve on this subject, based on his direct involvement in the writing of the McNamara/Taylor Report in 1963.

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

How ironic that Prouty critic Chip Berlet finally agrees-- after all these years-- with Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's original claims about Deep State motives for JFK's murder.

So much for the oft-repeated disinformation about Prouty being a right wing fascist, anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, etc., etc.

Leslie, have you and Michael Griffith studied Prouty's original commentary about NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 in his book about JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam?

He was way ahead of the curve on this subject, based on his direct involvement in the writing of the McNamara/Taylor Report in 1963.

I don't know about you, W., but I've been experiencing cognitive dissonance whiplash following this debate!  Michael is invoking anti-fascist Berlet and you're in a position of either ignoring or defending Liberty Lobby and Carto?

 It wouldn't be entirely accurate to say I'm agnostic relating to Prouty, but in all candor, I've never relied heavily on his work. No doubt the issues under scrutiny here are partly the reason.  I've read other commentary on 263 and 273 and studied Max Taylor's role in depth, so it's possible my sources relied on Prouty's initial exposé.

[as an aside, Taylor had assumed control of Mexican Light and Power in MC when W. H. Draper returned to the states to head up America's first commercial nuclear company which suggests he rubbed shoulders with Win Scott just prior to being "recalled" to DC by President Kennedy. Draper, an original representative of NATO, shared financial connections with John McCone. All by way of saying, I think Max Taylor has danced between the raindrops in spite of his alleged friendship with JFK. He wouldn't be the first friend to betray him.]

I know Hank refers briefly to Prouty in A Terrible Mistake and A Secret Order; at one point he asks why Prouty waited until the early '90s to identify Lansdale — giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was only then he came across the photo. But I recognize Hank is primarily intrigued that Prouty makes quite clear the international scope of his caution, a fact that was ignored far too long in this investigation, in our opinion.

And . . .  at the risk of opening up another 'can of worms', I spent months trying to track down records to explain just how US presence in Vietnam went from some 700-800 when Eisenhower left office to 15,000 when Kennedy determined 'this far and no further'.  Who signed off on those 14,000+ deployments? As Commander in Chief wouldn't those orders have at least crossed K's desk, even if perfunctory or ceremonial?  I've searched high and low for signatures, dates, military bases, etc., including several requests of the JFK Library to no avail.  If you have any insight, or can refer me to source material, I would appreciate it.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Joe Bauer]

Obviously JFK was holding off many major foreign policy actions until he was re-elected.

 

[Michael Griffith]

22 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I don't know about you, W., but I've been experiencing cognitive dissonance whiplash following this debate!  Michael is invoking anti-fascist Berlet and you're in a position of either ignoring or defending Liberty Lobby and Carto?

 It wouldn't be entirely accurate to say I'm agnostic relating to Prouty, but in all candor, I've never relied heavily on his work. No doubt the issues under scrutiny here are partly the reason.  I've read other commentary on 263 and 273 and studied Max Taylor's role in depth, so it's possible my sources relied on Prouty's initial exposé.

[as an aside, Taylor had assumed control of Mexican Light and Power in MC when W. H. Draper returned to the states to head up America's first commercial nuclear company which suggests he rubbed shoulders with Win Scott just prior to being "recalled" to DC by President Kennedy. Draper, an original representative of NATO, shared financial connections with John McCone. All by way of saying, I think Max Taylor has danced between the raindrops in spite of his alleged friendship with JFK. He wouldn't be the first friend to betray him.]

I know Hank refers briefly to Prouty in A Terrible Mistake and A Secret Order; at one point he asks why Prouty waited until the early '90s to identify Lansdale — giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was only then he came across the photo. But I recognize Hank is primarily intrigued that Prouty makes quite clear the international scope of his caution, a fact that was ignored far too long in this investigation, in our opinion.

And . . .  at the risk of opening up another 'can of worms', I spent months trying to track down records to explain just how US presence in Vietnam went from some 700-800 when Eisenhower left office to 15,000 when Kennedy determined 'this far and no further'.  Who signed off on those 14,000+ deployments? As Commander in Chief wouldn't those orders have at least crossed K's desk, even if perfunctory or ceremonial?  I've searched high and low for signatures, dates, military bases, etc., including several requests of the JFK Library to no avail.  If you have any insight, or can refer me to source material, I would appreciate it.

JFK authorized all of those troop increases. Dr. Mark Moyar covers this in some detail in chapters 5 and 6 in his book Triumph Forsaken (Cambridge University Press, 2006).