Questions for Douglas Caddy

[Pat Speer]

John, conservatives believe, as the Constitution states, that the fundamental purpose of the government is to provide the defense of the nation.

Moreover conservatives believe that most social welfare programs are best accomplished on the local level.

LBJ fought two wars: the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty. He lost both.

It should also be remembered that it was through accelerated defense spending that Ronald Reagan defeated Communism. The Soviet Union attempted to keep up with the US and it could not. And that was Reagan's strategy. Far better to defeat an enemy that way than through an actual war with great loss of life.

One of the reasons Democrats lose elections is because they are perceived as being "soft" on national defense.

Tim, you continue to prefer myth to history. Ask anyone in the know, such as Robert Gates, and they will tell you that the fall of the Soviet union came as a rsponse to the CUMULATIVE efforts of every president from Truman to Bush I. Jimmy Carter receives high marks in Gates' book. The military build-up Reagan is given credit for actually started in Carter's era. The Reagan military buiild-up was in fact a SPENDING build-up as the one TRILLION dollars or more WASTED on Star Wars technology has not made the United States one iota safer. It has merely scared our allies and enemies into looking for their own devious ways of conquering space, the final frontier.

Another myth is that conservatives prefer LOCAL social programs. B.S. Conservatives prefer faith-based programs and charity-based programs. Remember "a thousand points of light?" States rights was, and remains, a call for limited rights. No one in the states rights movement, including yourself, ever proposed greater protections at the local level than was proposed at the federal level.

That LBJ lost the war on poverty is another right-wing myth. "Poverty is just too big a foe, and we shouldn't even bother to fight it" is the right-wing attitude. "Let the poor people sop up the gravy that the rich spill on the floor" is another. Gee, I wonder who's spreading this gospel. The rich?

A book came out in the early eightes, I believe, named America's Hidden Success. It detailed how in the post WW2 years the United States had had an unprecedented number of people, many of them women and baby boomers, enter the job market. In a raw Adam Smith economy this would have resulted in falling wages, and a drastically reduced standard of living for most Americans. That this did not happen should have been considered a rousing success for the economic policies of everyone from Kennedy through Carter, but instead Reagan was able to convince the American people that these policies had been a failure. He then proceeded to tell the biggest LIE to the American people since Nixon's "I am not a crook"--that a tax cut and a military build-up would help balance the budget. Reagan's deficit build-up passed the buck to the next generation. Reagan should thank the day Bill Clinton took office. By undoing Reagan's damage, Clinton allowed the myth of Reagan--and that his policies were good for the economy-- to survive.

Of course, Dubya is such a clown he makes Reagan look like Proxmire.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Douglas Caddy]

Doug, it has come to my attention that in your youth you spent sometime in New Orleans. I don't suppose you got to know anyone who has been linked to Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in New Orleans?

I attended Alcee Fortier High School in New Orleans from 1954 until I was graduated in 1956. That same year I departed New Orleans and enrolled in the School of Foreign Service, at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

In 1954, the Senate took up the matter of the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Kent and Phoebe Courtney organized a public meeting of those who supported McCarthy and opposed his being censured. I attended and within days set up a small table in Jackson Square, in front of St. Louis Cathedral in the French Quarter, to solicit signatures on a petition opposing McCarthy’s censure. McCarthy was catholic, so there was no lack of signatories on the petition from those attending mass in the Cathedral.

After the national petition drive, which had been organized by General Albert Wedemeyer, ended with the Senate’s censure of McCarthy, I did voluntary work after high school in helping the Courtney’s launch their publication, Free Men Speak, which later was re-named The Independent American.

Later, at a public meeting of the Kohn Crime Commission, a quasi-governmental investigatory body set up to monitor organized crime in New Orleans, Kent Courtney introduced me to Guy Bannister.

I departed New Orleans several years before Lee Harvey Oswald arrived and thus never met Oswald. As is known, Oswald was recruited by Bannister for “undercover” work and also was also recruited by Dr. Alton Oschner of the Oschner Cancer Clinic for “specialized” work . There are other topics already in the Forum that cover the period that Oswald worked with Oschner, so I won’t elaborate any further here on this aspect.

However, there is a direct link between Dr. Oschner and the election of George Bush as President in 2000. I shall describe this in a forthcoming posting

[Greg Wagner]

Hi Mr. Caddy,

Thanks for participating and being so willing to answer questions. In an effort to learn about these groups I'm trying to understand how the views expressed by the leaders of the John Birch Society differ from those of the Young Americans for Freedom? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks.

Greg

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Mr. Caddy:

Thank you for sharing your perspective on these historical events.

We know that in the 1950s William F. Buckley was a strong supporter of Jim Crow laws in the Deep South. From your knowledge of him, was Buckley a racist or was he just an opportunist politician?

[Douglas Caddy]

Hi Mr. Caddy,

Thanks for participating and being so willing to answer questions. In an effort to learn about these groups I'm trying to understand how the views expressed by the leaders of the John Birch Society differ from those of the Young Americans for Freedom? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks.

Greg

The John Birch Society and Young Americans for Freedom were both conservative organizations and probably shared similar views on a number of public issues in the 1960's. The Birch Society mainly stressed anti-communism, while YAF had a broader view of public policy.

YAF certainly did not embrace the view of Robert Welch, the Society’s founder, who proclaimed that “Eisenhower is a communist.” YAF’s public image was more moderate in its approach to public discourse.

As a result, YAF attracted the support of leading conservative figures, while the Society did not.

YAF’s membership was comprised of young persons, while the Society attracted adults.

YAF sponsored it first conservative rally in March 1961, six months after its founding, which merited a front page article in The New York Times. The rally was held at the Manhattan Center on 34th street in New York City and over 3000 persons were turned away because the Center was already full with an even larger number. As the Times reported, those on the outside were assuaged by Senator Goldwater, who went outside the meeting hall and talked to them just before the rally began.

The Times previously had recognized that something interesting was afoot when it carried an article about the activities of Youth For Goldwater at the Republican Convention in Chicago in August 1960. The Times’ reporter interviewed me and conveyed the significance of what was taking place then, while nevertheless characterizing me as a “young fogey.”

In 1962 YAF held a second conservative rally at Madison Square Garden, which was packed with almost 20,000 attendees.

On the other hand, the John Birch Society, due to its extremist image, was never able to mount a public meeting that attracted more than a few hundred people on any one occasion.

For those who wish to learn more about the early years of YAF, the link below will bring up a YAF web page titled “Rebels with a Cause - Part I, The YAF Story 1960-1967" by Lee and Anne Edwards, both of whom were involved in the origins of YAF.

http://www.yaf.com/rebels1.shtml

[Douglas Caddy]

Mr. Caddy:

Thank you for sharing your perspective on these historical events.

We know that in the 1950s William F. Buckley was a strong supporter of Jim Crow laws in the Deep South. From your knowledge of him, was Buckley a racist or was he just an opportunist politician?

I do not consider William F. Buckley to be either a racist or opportunist. He is an extremely cerebral man, obviously gifted with a high I.Q.

But even one so intelligent as he can make a grievous decision with disastrous results.

Only within the last week has Buckley publicly acknowledged that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that now is the time to admit defeat and remove our troops.

Millions of persons around the globe far less gifted intelligently than Buckley marched against the Iraq War in the months preceding the invasion.

They foresaw disaster. Why didn’t Buckley?

He is a captive to his significant role in history in jump-starting conservatism by writing “God and Man at Yale” in 1953 and initiating National Review magazine in 1955.

In 1950, in “The Liberal Imagination,” Lionel Trilling declared that “the plain fact” was that there were no conservative ideas being seriously considered in public discourse.

Buckley changed that.

The real question today is: Now that Buckley has admitted that the Iraq War is a disaster, will he have the courage to go further and acknowledge that the conservative ideology has become morally bankrupt, and that its leaders, who control all three branches of the U.S. government, by their actions pose a threat to the viability of Western Civilization?

[John Dolva]

Douglas, do you know if it was Kent who recommended Bannister to the Louisianna or the Mississippi Sovereignty Comisssions? Also did you know/meet Frank McGehee?

Did you know that S Thurmond was a strong supporter of both YAF and JBS, and the person responsible for the subcommittee to investigate the General Walker case, which in turn Phoebe was involved with. She appears as a strong fan of Walker. The YAF sharon statement appears like a 'net' used to gather individuals who in growing to political maturity could be expected to end up as JBS supporters. Also they extended the member age right on day one to accomodate active older persons. One site describes YAF as the young persons JBS. How correct would you say this is?

[Douglas Caddy]

Douglas, do you know if it was Kent who recommended Bannister to the Louisianna or the Mississippi Sovereignty Comisssions? Also did you know/meet Frank McGehee?

Did you know that S Thurmond was a strong supporter of both YAF and JBS, and the person responsible for the subcommittee to investigate the General Walker case, which in turn Phoebe was involved with. She appears as a strong fan of Walker. The YAF sharon statement appears like a 'net' used to gather individuals who in growing to political maturity could be expected to end up as JBS supporters. Also they extended the member age right on day one to accomodate active older persons. One site describes YAF as the young persons JBS. How correct would you say this is?

I had a volunary working relationship while still in high school in New Orleans with Kent and Phoebe Courtney. This was from 1954-56, until I left for college. I did not maintain contact after that date and am aware of any activities in which they engaged subsequently.

I helped with the preparation of their publication, Free Men Speak and, later, The Independent American. The publication reprinted editorials from conservative newspapers, such as the Manchester (N.H.) Union-Leader and the N.Y. Daily News. There was little original editorial comment by the Courtneys in their publication during this period.

I did not know that Gay Bannister was recommended to the La. or Miss. Sovereignty Commissions. I have never heard the name of Frank McGehee before.

The John Birch Society had essentially through its activities tarnished its public image so that no thinking young conservative would have seen much benefit with associating with the group. I do not think that YAF in any way was used a vehicle to recruit members for the Society. Senator Strom Thurmond was a strong YAF supporter and spoke at YAF-sponsored events. I have no knowledge about his views of the John Birch Society.

[Douglas Caddy]

Doug, it has come to my attention that in your youth you spent sometime in New Orleans. I don't suppose you got to know anyone who has been linked to Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in New Orleans?

I promised in a prior posting to provide information concerning link between Dr. Alton Oschner of New Orleans, a key figure in the Kennedy Assassination debate, and the election of George Bush as President in 2000. This follows.

There is no need to go into the background of Dr. Oschner, which has already been disclosed by others in prior Forum postings.

The Oschner link involves the super-secret Council for National Policy. Below is an article from the New York Times of August 28, 2004 that provides background on the Council:

August 28, 2004

Club of the Most Powerful Gathers in Strictest Privacy

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

The New York Times

Three times a year for 23 years, a little-known club of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country have met behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference, the Council for National Policy, to strategize about how to turn the country to the right.

Details are closely guarded.

"The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before of after a meeting," a list of rules obtained by The New York Times advises the attendees.

The membership list is "strictly confidential." Guests may attend "only with the unanimous approval of the executive committee." In e-mail messages to one another, members are instructed not to refer to the organization by name, to protect against leaks.

This week, before the Republican convention, the members quietly convened in New York, holding their latest meeting almost in plain sight, at the Plaza Hotel, for what a participant called "a pep rally" to re-elect President Bush.

Mr. Bush addressed the group in fall 1999 to solicit support for his campaign, stirring a dispute when news of his speech leaked and Democrats demanded he release a tape recording. He did not.

Not long after the Iraq invasion, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld attended a council meeting.

This week, as the Bush campaign seeks to rally Christian conservative leaders to send Republican voters to the polls, several Bush administration and campaign officials were on hand, according to an agenda obtained by The New York Times.

"The destiny of our nation is on the shoulders of the conservative movement," the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, told the gathering as he accepted its Thomas Jefferson award on Thursday, according to an attendee's notes.

The secrecy that surrounds the meeting and attendees like the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly and the head of the National Rifle Association, among others, makes it a subject of suspicion, at least in the minds of the few liberals aware of it.

"The real crux of this is that these are the genuine leaders of the Republican Party, but they certainly aren't going to be visible on television next week," Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said.

Mr. Lynn was referring to the list of moderate speakers like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York who are scheduled to speak at the convention.

"The C.N.P. members are not going to be visible next week," he said. "But they are very much on the minds of George W. Bush and Karl Rove every week of the year, because these are the real powers in the party."

A spokesman for the White House, Trent Duffy, said: "The American people are quite clear and know what the president's agenda is. He talks about it every day in public forums, not to any secret group of conservatives or liberals. And he will be talking about his agenda on national television in less than a week."

The administration and re-election effort were major focuses of the group's meeting on Thursday and yesterday. Under Secretary of State John Bolton spoke about plans for Iran, a spokesman for the State Department said.

Likewise, a spokesman for Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander Acosta confirmed that Mr. Acosta had addressed efforts to stop "human trafficking," a major issue among Christian conservatives.

Dr. Frist spoke about supporting Mr. Bush and limiting embryonic stem cell research, two attendees said. Dan Senor, who recently returned from Iraq after working as a spokesman for L. Paul Bremer III, the top American civilian administrator, was scheduled to provide an update on the situation there.

Among presentations on the elections, an adviser to Mr. Bush's campaign, Ralph Reed, spoke on "The 2004 Elections: Who Will Win in November?," attendees said.

The council was founded in 1981, just as the modern conservative movement began its ascendance. The Rev. Tim LaHaye, an early Christian conservative organizer and the best-selling author of the "Left Behind" novels about an apocalyptic Second Coming, was a founder. His partners included Paul Weyrich, another Christian conservative political organizer who also helped found the Heritage Foundation.

They said at the time that they were seeking to create a Christian conservative alternative to what they believed was the liberalism of the Council on Foreign Relations.

A statement of its mission distributed this week said the council's purposes included "to acquaint our membership with those in positions of leadership in our nation in order that mutual respect be fostered" and "to encourage the exchange of information concerning the methodology of working within the system to promote the values and ends sought by individual members."

Membership costs several thousand dollars a year, a participant said. Its executive director, Steve Baldwin, did not return a phone call.

Over the years, the council has become a staging ground for conservative efforts to make the Republican Party more socially conservative. Ms. Schlafly, who helped build a grass-roots network to fight for socially conservative positions in the party, is a longstanding member.

At times, the council has also seen the party as part of the problem. In 1998, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family spoke at the council to argue that Republicans were taking conservatives for granted. He said he voted for a third-party candidate in 1996.

Opposition to same-sex marriage was a major conference theme. Although conservatives and Bush campaign officials have denied seeking to use state ballot initiatives that oppose same-sex marriage as a tool to bring out conservative voters, the agenda includes a speech on "Using Conservative Issues in Swing States," said Phil Burress, leader of an initiative drive in Ohio, a battleground state.

The membership list this year was a who's who of evangelical Protestant conservatives and their allies, including Dr. Dobson, Mr. Weyrich, Holland H. Coors of the beer dynasty; Wayne LaPierre of the National Riffle Association, Richard A. Viguerie of American Target Advertising, Mark Mix of the National Right to Work Committee and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Not everyone present was a Bush supporter, however. This year, the council included speeches by Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and Michael A. Peroutka of the ultraconservative Constitution Party. About a quarter of the members attended their speeches, an attendee said.

Nor was the gathering all business. On Wednesday, members had a dinner in the Rainbow Room, where William F. Buckley Jr. of the National Review was a special guest. At 10 p.m. on Thursday and Friday, members had "prayer sessions" in the Rose Room at the hotel. [End]

The Council for National Policy was incorporated in 1981. Its first Executive Director was Woody Jenkins, a protege of Dr. Alton Oschner.

Woody Jenkins was introduced to the contra cause in Nicaragua by Dr. Oschner, head of the Caribbean Commission. It was Oschner who suggested Jenkins start Friends of the Americas (FOA), which became a conduit to the contras. Oschner's father was a prominent white supremacist. Jenkins had been a member of the Oschner’s Caribbean Commission. Friends of the Americas was a Caribbean Commission spinoff. Through Jenkins' membership, FOA was also linked to the Council for National Policy. Jenkins was the Executive Director of the Council in 1982-83, and in 1987. Further information on Jenkins and Dr. Oschner can be found in the links below:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/foa.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_E._%22Woody%22_Jenkins

George Bush addressed the Council for National Policy in 1999, and, as noted in the Times’ article, since then has steadfastly refused to release a copy of his speech. It is alleged that in his speech he outlined to the assembled conservatives the goals he would seek to achieve if elected president. Historians have already labeled the Bush presidency as a failure, probably the worst in American history. It would, therefore, be of interest to history to find out now exactly what promises he made in 1999 to these key conservatives before his election the following year.

Bush is recognized as being a lame-duck president. The conservatives, operating through the secretive Council for National Policy, are already making plans to elect his successor. Because this is the most important conservative group in America, it is important that its future plans and activities become publicly identified. The best means to do this is to read the past and future postings on the Council that appear in www.google.com.

[John Simkin]

I know the Young Americans for Freedom was set up to help get Barry Goldwater elected as president. In 1964 he constantly attacked Johnson for being soft on communism. When interviewed by Howard K. Smith, Goldwater argued that the United States should start bombing North Vietnam. Smith suggested that this “risked a fight with China”. “You might have to do that” Goldwater responded.” On other occasions, Goldwater had insisted that atomic weapons should be used in Vietnam.

Johnson always intended to wait until after the election in November, 1964, before beginning the war against Vietnam. Public opinion polls showed that the American people were overwhelmingly against sending combat troops to Vietnam. Most leading figures in the Democratic Party shared this view and had told Johnson this was a war he could not win as China was likely to send troops into Vietnam if the country was bombed or invaded.

Johnson’s strategy changed when the right-wing Barry Goldwater won the Republican Party nomination in July. Johnson realized that the American people were afraid of Goldwater's threat to use nuclear weapons and therefore was able to go to war and marginalize Goldwater. As James Reston pointed out in the New York Times: “The Congress was free in theory only (to vote for war). In practice, despite the private reservations of many members, it had to go along… it had the choice of helping him or helping the enemy, which is no choice at all.” He then added, as a result of this resolution, who could be trusted with this enormous new power – Johnson or Goldwater?

What were your feelings about Goldwater's policy on Vietnam? Did you agree with them at the time?

[Douglas Caddy]

I know the Young Americans for Freedom was set up to help get Barry Goldwater elected as president. In 1964 he constantly attacked Johnson for being soft on communism. When interviewed by Howard K. Smith, Goldwater argued that the United States should start bombing North Vietnam. Smith suggested that this “risked a fight with China”. “You might have to do that” Goldwater responded.” On other occasions, Goldwater had insisted that atomic weapons should be used in Vietnam.

Johnson always intended to wait until after the election in November, 1964, before beginning the war against Vietnam. Public opinion polls showed that the American people were overwhelmingly against sending combat troops to Vietnam. Most leading figures in the Democratic Party shared this view and had told Johnson this was a war he could not win as China was likely to send troops into Vietnam if the country was bombed or invaded.

Johnson’s strategy changed when the right-wing Barry Goldwater won the Republican Party nomination in July. Johnson realized that the American people were afraid of Goldwater's threat to use nuclear weapons and therefore was able to go to war and marginalize Goldwater. As James Reston pointed out in the New York Times: “The Congress was free in theory only (to vote for war). In practice, despite the private reservations of many members, it had to go along… it had the choice of helping him or helping the enemy, which is no choice at all.” He then added, as a result of this resolution, who could be trusted with this enormous new power – Johnson or Goldwater?

What were your feelings about Goldwater's policy on Vietnam? Did you agree with them at the time?

In the period leading up to the expansion of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1965, I was in general agreement with Senator Goldwater’s views, with the exception of his advocacy of the use of nuclear weapons. I was unaware that he maintained this particular position until I read your posting.

At this time I was in NYU law school and living in the Manhattan coop owned by Alice Widener. Mrs. Widener, a newspaper columnist and publisher of USA magazine, every few months talked on the phone with J. Edgar Hoover. She had for many years infiltrated Communist Party meetings in New York City using the name of Alice Berezowsky, widow of a prominent Russian emigre, Sergei Berezowsky, her first husband. Hoover valued her inside reports on the Party’s meetings.

Her writings were frequently published in Barron’s Financial Weekly, whose editor, Robert Bleiberg, was a frequent dinner guest in her coop, along with James Dines, another Barron’s writer. The topic at these dinner meetings invariably dealt with Vietnam and while everyone was in general agreement that the American war effort must be supported, there was also discussion of public statements of Senator William Fulbright, an opponent of the war. His views had a certain credibility, or so it seemed to those around the dinner table.

Of course, Johnson defeated Goldwater in 1964 and America got the Vietnam War, big-time. In retrospect, the Vietnam War obviously was a disaster for the U.S., just as is Bush’s war in Iraq.

Johnson’s military experience in World War II was a joke. Mainly photo-ops for a few weeks in the Pacific theater. Goldwater, on the other hand, had a distinguished military record and was a jet pilot. He was Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I firmly believe that had Goldwater been elected, the Vietnam War would not have been the total wipe-out for America that took place under Johnson’s leadership.

(I still remember in my mind’s eye seeing on television General Douglas MacArthur meeting reporters on the lawn of the White House in 1963 after conferring with President Kennedy, who had sought his views on Vietnam. MacArthur declared that, “the chickens are coming home to roost,” a reference of the Korean War, which even today lacks final resolution.)

Another topic that to my mind merits discussion, but not at this time, is whether communism and the Soviet Union were actually the threat that 99.9 percent of the world’s free population were led to believe or whether they were instead the strategic product of controlling financial interests in London and on Wall Street who stood to profit by the cold war. I visited the Soviet Union in 1974 with a group of lawyers and was flabbergasted at the poor living conditions that I saw. Upon my return I proposed to Allan Ryskind, editor of Human Events, the conservative newspaper for which I had worked while attending Georgetown University, that I write an article stating that other than for its nuclear weaponry, the Soviet Union was essentially a third-world country that posed only a limited menace to the U.S. Ryskind responded that if Human Events were to publish such an article it would lose its readership, which much preferred to believe that the Soviet Union posed a dire threat to America’s survival. I have often wondered what Alice Widener, a strident anti-communist but possessor of a sophisticated mind, would have thought had she had been able to visit the Soviet Union in the 1970's.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Douglas Caddy

[John Dolva]

a thought: Woman as conservative politician was one image promoted by the rightwing thinkers such as Human Events. Probably to counter the traditional view of woman as revolutionary, such as for example the trigger for the Oktober revolution, a Woamans Day march. Contributing to the downfall of The Generals in Argentina in the late 70's by the march of the mothers of the disappeared etc.

a question

Dougleas, are you aware of any connections between Alice Widener and J. J. Angleton? Thank you.

Edited March 9, 2006 by John Dolva

[James Richards]

At this time I was in NYU law school and living in the Manhattan coop owned by Alice Widener. Mrs. Widener, a newspaper columnist and publisher of USA magazine, every few months talked on the phone with J. Edgar Hoover. She had for many years infiltrated Communist Party meetings in New York City using the name of Alice Berezowsky, widow of a prominent Russian emigre, Sergei Berezowsky, her first husband. Hoover valued her inside reports on the Party’s meetings. (Douglas Caddy)

I found this piece penned by Alice Widener in 1961 most interesting. I wonder who the anonymous Administrator was?

James

[Douglas Caddy]

a thought: Woman as conservative politician was one image promoted by the rightwing thinkers such as Human Events. Probably to counter the traditional view of woman as revolutionary, such as for example the trigger for the Oktober revolution, a Woamans Day march. Contributing to the downfall of The Generals in Argentina in the late 70's by the march of the mothers of the disappeared etc.

a question

Dougleas, are you aware of any connections between Alice Widener and J. J. Angleton? Thank you.

Alice Widener worked closely with the FBI on internal security matters. On a number of occasions the bureau chief of the FBI's Manhattan office visited her in her residence and sought her counsel or information that she might have on these matters.

However, in all the years that I knew her, primarily in the 1960's and early 1970's, I never heard her speak of the CIA. For this reason, I do not think that she had any connection with J.J. Angleton.

[Douglas Caddy]

At this time I was in NYU law school and living in the Manhattan coop owned by Alice Widener. Mrs. Widener, a newspaper columnist and publisher of USA magazine, every few months talked on the phone with J. Edgar Hoover. She had for many years infiltrated Communist Party meetings in New York City using the name of Alice Berezowsky, widow of a prominent Russian emigre, Sergei Berezowsky, her first husband. Hoover valued her inside reports on the Party’s meetings. (Douglas Caddy)

I found this piece penned by Alice Widener in 1961 most interesting. I wonder who the anonymous Administrator was?

James

The 1961 column is vintage Alice Widener. It is interesting some 45 years later to read what the Anonymous Administrator in the State Department wrote in the Washington Post and Alice Widener’s response. Both seemed to hit their marks about 50 per cent of the time.

Castro has endured and his influence in Latin America has never been greater. In fact, Latin America has never been so unified against the U.S. as it is today. In this regard the link below will bring up a recent interview with Noam Chomsky, titled “What’s happening is something completely new in the history of the hemisphere,” which was published on March 7, 2006 in Counterpunch.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dwyer03072006.html