With the revelation that Dexter Filkins was used to propagate the Myth of Zarqawi, I think it would be useful to look at the role of journalists as partners with our intelligence agencies.
Most Americans picture James Bond when they think about CIA officers. But real CIA case officers operate much differently, and quietly, than 007. The main job of a CIA case officer is to recruit foreign spies. They look for people in sensitive positions in foreign governments, and they try to take advantage of their weaknesses. Maybe they have a secret and can be blackmailed. Maybe they need surgery for their granddaughter. Maybe they are just greedy. Once a spy has been recruited, the case officer’s job is to keep them safe and to keep them busy. The most dangerous moment is when a foreign spy has to make contact with his case officer. For this reason, a lot of devices are used to provide cover for such meetings. And that is where journalists have historically played an important role.
From How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up; THE CIA AND THE MEDIA, BY CARL BERNSTEIN: originally published in Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977.
“After a foreigner is recruited, a case officer often has to stay in the background,” explained a CIA official. “So you use a journalist to carry messages to and from both parties”
Journalists in the field generally took their assignments in the same manner as any other undercover operative. If, for instance, a journalist was based in Austria, he ordinarily would be under the general direction of the Vienna station chief and report to a case officer. Some, particularly roving correspondents or U.S.‑based reporters who made frequent trips abroad, reported directly to CIA officials in Langley, Virginia.
The tasks they performed sometimes consisted of little more than serving as “eyes and ears” for the CIA; reporting on what they had seen or overheard in an Eastern European factory, at a diplomatic reception in Bonn, on the perimeter of a military base in Portugal. On other occasions, their assignments were more complex: planting subtly concocted pieces of misinformation; hosting parties or receptions designed to bring together American agents and foreign spies; serving up “black” propaganda to leading foreign journalists at lunch or dinner; providing their hotel rooms or bureau offices as “drops” for highly sensitive information moving to and from foreign agents; conveying instructions and dollars to CIA controlled members of foreign governments.
Often the CIA’s relationship with a journalist might begin informally with a lunch, a drink, a casual exchange of information. An Agency official might then offer a favor—for example, a trip to a country difficult to reach; in return, he would seek nothing more than the opportunity to debrief the reporter afterward. A few more lunches, a few more favors, and only then might there be a mention of a formal arrangement — “That came later,” said a CIA official, “after you had the journalist on a string.”
Another official described a typical example of the way accredited journalists (either paid or unpaid by the CIA) might be used by the Agency: “In return for our giving them information, we’d ask them to do things that fit their roles as journalists but that they wouldn’t have thought of unless we put it in their minds. For instance, a reporter in Vienna would say to our man, ‘I met an interesting second secretary at the Czech Embassy.’ We’d say, ‘Can you get to know him? And after you get to know him, can you assess him? And then, can you put him in touch with us—would you mind us using your apartment?”‘
Formal recruitment of reporters was generally handled at high levels—after the journalist had undergone a thorough background check. The actual approach might even be made by a deputy director or division chief. On some occasions, no discussion would he entered into until the journalist had signed a pledge of secrecy.
“The secrecy agreement was the sort of ritual that got you into the tabernacle,” said a former assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence. “After that you had to play by the rules.” David Attlee Phillips, former Western Hemisphere chief of clandestine services and a former journalist himself, estimated in an interview that at least 200 journalists signed secrecy agreements or employment contracts with the Agency in the past twenty‑five years. Phillips, who owned a small English‑language newspaper in Santiago, Chile, when he was recruited by the CIA in 1950, described the approach: “Somebody from the Agency says, ‘I want you to help me. 1 know you are a true‑blue American, but I want you to sign a piece of paper before I tell you what it’s about.’ I didn’t hesitate to sign, and a lot of newsmen didn’t hesitate over the next twenty years.”
“One of the things we always had going for us in terms of enticing reporters,” observed a CIA official who coordinated some of the arrangements with journalists, “was that we could make them look better with their home offices. A foreign correspondent with ties to the Company [the CIA] stood a much better chance than his competitors of getting the good stories.”
Within the CIA, journalist‑operatives were accorded elite status, a consequence of the common experience journalists shared with high‑level CIA officials. Many had gone to the same schools as their CIA handlers, moved in the same circles, shared fashionably liberal, anti‑Communist political values, and were part of the same “old boy” network that constituted something of an establishment elite in the media, politics and academia of postwar America. The most valued of these lent themselves for reasons of national service, not money.
The Agency’s use of journalists in undercover operations has been most extensive in Western Europe (“That was the big focus, where the threat was,” said one CIA official), Latin America and the Far East. In the 1950s and 1960s journalists were used as intermediaries—spotting, paying, passing instructions—to members of the Christian Democratic party in Italy and the Social Democrats in Germany, both of which covertly received millions of dollars from the CIA. During those years “we had journalists all over Berlin and Vienna just to keep track of who the hell was coming in from the East and what they were up to,” explained a CIA official.
In the Sixties, reporters were used extensively in the CIA offensive against Salvador Allende in Chile; they provided funds to Allende’s opponents and wrote anti‑Allende propaganda for CIA proprietary publications that were distributed in Chile. (CIA officials insist that they make no attempt to influence the content of American newspapers, but some fallout is inevitable: during the Chilean offensive, CIA‑generated black propaganda transmitted on the wire service out of Santiago often turned up in American publications.)
Let’s take a look at bio of Judith Miller.
She graduated from Barnard College in 1969 and received a master’s degree in public affairs from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. In 1971, while at Princeton, Miller traveled to Jerusalem to research a paper.
She became fascinated with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and spent the rest of the summer traveling for the first time to Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon.
As a correspondent for The Progressive and National Public Radio, she turned her academic interest into a professional one, traveling to the region and cultivating a network of highly placed sources.
Miller started at the Washington bureau of the New York Times in 1977, part of a new breed of hungry young hires…She and her boyfriend Steven Rattner, also a Times reporter, became close friends of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the son of the then-publisher of the Times, whose first job at the Times, starting in 1978, was also as a reporter of the Washington bureau. For several summers, Miller and Rattner shared a weekend house on the Eastern Shore of Maryland with Sulzberger and his wife, Gail. (Sulzberger would become publisher of the Times in 1992 in his own right.)
In 1983, the Times put her Middle East experience to use by installing her as its Cairo bureau chief, the first woman in that position. The bureau was responsible for covering the Arab world, allowing her to range from Tripoli to Damascus.
Miller has the profile of a typical CIA asset. She attended two Ivy League schools: Barnard and Princeton. She worked in Cairo as a bureau chief. And, most importantly, she was close personal friends with the Sulzbergers.
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc…
The CIAs relationship with most news executives differed fundamentally from those with working reporters and stringers, who were much more subject to direction from the Agency. A few executives—Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times among them—signed secrecy agreements. But such formal understandings were rare: relationships between Agency officials and media executives were usually social—”The P and Q Street axis in Georgetown,” said one source. “You don’t tell Wilharn Paley to sign a piece of paper saying he won’t fink.”
There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as “known assets” and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects. Three of the most widely read columnists who maintained such ties with the Agency are C.L. Sulzberger of the New York Times, Joseph Alsop, and the late Stewart Alsop, whose column appeared in the New York Herald‑Tribune, the Saturday Evening Post and Newsweek. CIA files contain reports of specific tasks all three undertook. Sulzberger is still regarded as an active asset by the Agency. According to a senior CIA official, “Young Cy Sulzberger had some uses…. He signed a secrecy agreement because we gave him classified information…. There was sharing, give and take. We’d say, ‘Wed like to know this; if we tell you this will it help you get access to so‑and‑so?’ Because of his access in Europe he had an Open Sesame. We’d ask him to just report: ‘What did so‑and‑so say, what did he look like, is he healthy?’ He was very eager, he loved to cooperate.” On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist’s byline in the Times. “Cy came out and said, ‘I’m thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?’” a CIA officer said. “We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it.” Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. “A lot of baloney,” he said.
Sulzberger claims that he was never formally “tasked” by the Agency and that he “would never get caught near the spook business. My relations were totally informal—I had a good many friends,” he said. “I’m sure they consider me an asset. They can ask me questions. They find out you’re going to Slobovia and they say, ‘Can we talk to you when you get back?’ … Or they’ll want to know if the head of the Ruritanian government is suffering from psoriasis. But I never took an assignment from one of those guys…. I’ve known Wisner well, and Helms and even McCone [former CIA director John McCone] I used to play golf with. But they’d have had to he awfully subtle to have used me.
Sulzberger says he was asked to sign the secrecy agreement in the 1950s. “A guy came around and said, ‘You are a responsible newsman and we need you to sign this if we are going to show you anything classified.’ I said I didn’t want to get entangled and told them, ‘Go to my uncle [Arthur Hays Sulzberger, then publisher of the New York Times] and if he says to sign it I will.’” His uncle subsequently signed such an agreement, Sulzberger said, and he thinks he did too, though he is unsure. “I don’t know, twenty‑some years is a long time.” He described the whole question as “a bubble in a bathtub.”
My strong suspicion is that Judith Miller has been an intelligence asset for a long time. Perhaps she was recruited back during her time at the Woodrow Wilson school.
If you’re right, this will blow this story open in a way that no one anticipated.
And her modus operandi certainly isn’t new:
yeah, it does sound familiar.
I wish every high school kid in the nation had to read that Bernstein piece. It’s almost thirty years old, but it remains one of the most important articles ever printed in this country.
I recommend bookmarking it, and also, sending it to people that are reluctant to be skeptical of common wisdom, like George Washington never told a lie, or Abu Masab al-Zarqawi is behind the insurgency in Iraq.
Good idea.
But if you’re going to run with this story, you need to make us a cheat sheet to keep track of all the sulzbergers and how they are related and which ones are columnists vs. publishers.
yup. and which ones are dead.
Judy just seems too stupid to be a very good asset. Yeah, yeah, she’ll print what she’s given. But despite the fact that she went to prison, I think she likes to talk too much about herself and her “special” security clearances. That’s just not good spy protocol.
The CIA’s numerous assets include both the brilliant and the barely capable. As the article says, not every asset was a “spy” in the classical sense. Some were just witting collaborators.
And speaking of witting collaborators – on the “History” Channel last night, I saw a show on the Kennedy assassination that had all CIA people speaking. Ruth Paine, who spied on peace activists in Nicaragua during the Contra war there, her husband Michael who worked at Bell Helicopter when they were supplying the CIA’s secret war in Laos, and Priscilla Johnson McMillan, a “witting collaborator” according to her CIA file, who could be as the CIA said in their own documents, persuaded to write whatever they wanted her to. She wrote “Marina and Lee”, another Oswald did it alone book.
In addition, Priscilla McMillan’s husband George McMillan was the author of a “James Earl Ray did it alone” book on the MLK assassination:
Everything IS connected. REAL history, as opposed to the propaganda we were raised on, is utterly fascinating, and ultimately important. We can’t learn the lessons of history if we’re reading the wrong page.
Another great piece, Booman. Thanks for the info, I had never seen the Bernstein article.
btw,
I hate to pick nits, but in the interest of factual correctness, I thought I’d let you know that Barnard is not an Ivy League school. The eight ivys are
* Brown University
* Columbia University
* Cornell University
* Dartmouth College
* Harvard University
* University of Pennsylvania
* Princeton University
* Yale University
Oh I get it, didn’t know that. Thanks for the clarification. Sorta like Radcliffe and Harvard, I guess.
right. The Ivies were all male until the 1960’s. Barnard is essentially an Ivy League school because it is essentially an extension of Columbia.
Yup. but Barnard-Columbia sort of snuck up on me. I just did a little research on it and most of the tightening of the relationship happened much later than the Harvard-Radcliffe relationship developed. Barnard also remains more loosely affiliated to the brother-Ivy, apparently. Radcliffe College essentially doesn’t exist anymore as a separate entity, but has been morphed into the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies. Back in my college days, Radcliffe women started receiving Harvard degrees instead of Radcliffe degrees, though we had already been living co-ed and sharing a course catalog for several years. Anyway, enough OT stuff, this thread is way too interesting to clog it up. Thanks again…
Since the overtness of Miller’s prewar “reporting” apperaed so obviously to be propaganda, I’d assumed from that point on she was a paid asset of some group, and as I researched her on the net it seemed clear, as Larry points out, she’d been doing such “work on behalf of others for some time.
I have a sense though that even if she started out as a CIA, Operation Mockingbird type aset, somewhere along the line she switched allegiance to the neocons who, despite having their own influence within both CIA and State, did not dominate or control those agencies until the installation of Bush the Imbecile.
I’d be willing to bet she was convinced to switch loyalty from CIA to Neocon during the Reagan regime, since Reagan, unwittingly perhaps, frustrated the neocons plans for attacking the Middle East at every turn. I think Wolfowitz and Perle and Ledeen and a few others got to her during that time and bent her completely to their agenda.
How would you switch loyalty from the CIA to the neocons without the CIA noticing.
Maybe she’s an Israeli asset working both sides.
I would say that she was probably not a specific asset of the CIA. When she worked in Cairo, she probably reported to the Cairo station chief. But, by the mid-90’s she probably reported to some liason to the National Security Agency. And when Cheney took over, Libby became her case officer. Why putz around at Langley when you have a direct line into the White House.
I have little doubt she served the same purpose for the Clinton administration. Certainly, Robin Wright has worked the same channels. But, she appears to be more interested in the Iran angle. Pushing the reformists as a viable alternative is her assignment.
Funny you should mention Robin Wright. She used to write these unsourced, overblown scare pieces re terrorism for the LA Times. So when the OKC Bombing happened, I told a friend or two that I knew the next day’s front page story would be by Robin Wright. And at the time the CIA was under fire from Jennifer Harbury, whose husband had been killed by a CIA asset. So I said the spin would be, “now we need the CIA more than ever.”
I was right about Wright on both counts. She bylined the article, and that was the spin.
Patterns, patterns. Conspiracy theory is simply pattern recognition.
One of the things about Robin Wright now, however, is that nothing she puts together seems to be supportive of our current regime’s behavior. I think her loyalties as far as intel goes is to the people who are currently out of power but who are moving forcefully against the neocons now to regain control of US policy and the Pentagon.
I would agree with you. I heard her speak in Seattle more recently and felt too that she was on the “good side” of the CIA at that point.
I agree. She seems to have been deactivated in 2001.
My view is she was “deactivated” because her “bosses” were themselves “deactivated” by the Neocons who usurped their power.
I don’t know why I wrote ‘National Security Agency’. I meant the National Security Council.
I was wondering. I did a double take. Thanks for the clarification!
i did a double-take too when I re-read it.
The CIA would have noticed certainly, but what could they have done about it; wouild they have ratted her out, or continued to use her with modified purpose clandestinely?
My broader point was actually that the Neocons were, by the middle of Reagans term, no real friend of the CIA; they were in fact adversaries in that they were competing for control of the same information exclusivity feeding the White House.
Hence Tenet and his gang were effectively Frozen out of any real policy-setting, and bypassed by Feith’s and Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s Pentagon-based Office of Special Plans. and this is where I think Miller’s main loyalty resided.
I think it’s important to understand there’s a split in the CIA itself. That’s why George Tenet didn’t work harder to keep the eleven words out of the SOUS.
There are those in the CIA who really do think America should be building, albeit covertly, a one-world government with the US President as Emperor. And then there are others in the Agency who want to defend the constitution. They don’t all think and act alike, but the leaders determine their course. And we should all be very afraid that the current leader is Porter Goss.
I’ve posited for quite a while now that there has been a central battle going on for control of the White House/Pentagon since Bush was installed; a battle waged between the Neocon usurpers and the Carlyle Group type old money crowd who’d directed US foreign policy and the intel community since the 1930’s. Key parts of the contest between these rival criminal gangs have been playing out internally at CIA and State, but I think it is the Neocon vs Carlyle dynamic that’s at the core of much of this brouhaha going on.
And, I think the Neocons are losing big time, though they will remain extremely dangerous for a long time to come and we must seek to thwart them at every opportunity, for they are truly insane.
I think it’s important to understand there’s a split in the CIA itself.
I think this is crucial and has long been a factor. I appreciate the chance to see your’s and others’ opinions on this subject here. We benefit from the experience/work in understanding history that you folks bring….and excellent article Boo. It’s great to see honest discussion on this subject.
House of Mirrors.
You cite an article about spook press assets that was wriitten by a spook press asset.
Nice.
America.
House of Mirrors.
“”The Cretans. Always liars” said the Cretan philosopher Epimenides. A prophet. The liars’s paradox. “Everything I say is a lie.” And there we go, off to the races.
Believe nothing.
ESPECIALLY nothing printed in the mainstream media. It even lies when it is telling the truth.
INCLUDING “Rolling Stone”.
Ands ESPECIALLY incluuding Bob Woodward. Go here for more on THAT subject.
Bob Woodward…ALL smoke and mirrors?
Nice, BooMan.
Not that what he is saying isn’t “true”.
It’s what he is NOT saying…
AG
Hey, thanks. I see you quoted my piece on Bob Woodward.
This is a topic I want to write a book on. I’ve gathered data for years on various reporters workings with the CIA.
At one time the CIA showed potential recruits the names of prominent journalists who were already working with them. When Walter Cronkite heard his name was listed, he got very upset. But I haven’t been able to determine for certain if he was upset because he was NOT an asset, or upset because his assetship had been exposed.
Yes.
Thank you for your work.
Watergate stunk to high heaven when it went down. Transparently false, the whole “Deep Throat” thing. And the “burglars” getting CAUGHT!!!??? Another howler. Hell…burglars in the Bronx never get caught unless they owner of the house is armed and awake when they come through the window…what a lovely coincidence that they left the tape on the door and thus brought down a government that was disobeying orders.
I wonder how much money Liddy was paid during his 5 year prison term? Honduras is lovely this time of year, I hear. ESPECIALLY the banks.
Only thing is…if you write the book…who will publish it?
The publishing world appears to me to be as under the thumb of the PermaGov as any OTHER segment of the corporate media.
If a book on this subject is published by ANY major house…and “CIA Rebels” is a thriving cottage industry in the publishing world…it is immedediately suspect, as far as I am concerned.
Good luck, though.
We are ALL going to need it.
AG
Sadly, that is a very real concern. One of the top editors at Random House used to be married to the head of CIA Counterintelligence’s secretary. And during the Church commmittee we learned a lot about the relationship of publishing houses to the CIA. It’s a challenge.
That’s mean that insurgents in Irak have some good reasons to kill all journalists they can find.
These “journalists”-spies are fully responsible for the death of their “collegues”.
I was tempted several months ago to buy a used copy of that Rolling Stone issue which was for sale on the internet just to get Bernsein’s piece. but I am so poor these days that I decided to forego it.
I am so pleased to see it here. I’ve already saved the whole thing on the computer and wil read through it at my leisure.
Thank you Larry Johnson for finding this thing and putting it up. And I agree with BooMan that it’s such an important piece that it should be required reading in civics class, and in any environment where the underpinnings of Democracy and the threats that face democracy are discussed.
I was just coming to say I found the whole article online. But of course, you’re so on top of it, you beat me to it! This is a most welcome development!
People need to understand how SERIOUSLY controlled our media has been since even before the cold war. Listen to what Thomas Jefferson wrote a friend a couple of hundred years ago:
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”
Someone here or on another board has a great sig from Chomsky re how the elite are the most heavily propagandized people and are therefore more likely to be swayed than the average joe who doesn’t read the “mainstream” publications.
‘Aye,’ that’d be ‘eye.’
‘I’ think one of the more egregious, early known, paid gov’t propagandists was NYT’ science ‘reporter,’ William L. Laurence, who was on the payroll of the War Department in the 40’s. The effects of his propaganda on the US atomic weapons program remain with us today.
Just a reminder, as many others here have pointed out, that the CIA isn’t the only agency running media assets.
Judy likely wasn’t working for the CIA, and likely wasn’t on anyone’s direct payroll. Her one-time co-author, Laurie Mylroie (who claimed Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi asset, & they were tied to the 1993 WTC bombing) is another likely intelligence asset. I wouldn’t be surprised if she got Judy in touch with her ultimate handlers. Mylroie was on the faculty at Harvard, as well as the Naval War College, & authored the seminal (as in its progeny is f**ing everywhere!) Bush v. The Beltway: How the CIA & State Dept Tried to Stop the War on Terror.
I’ve got a diary here somewhere on the AP & sometime NYT contributor, Regine Alexandre, who was on the NED’s payroll as a consultant while reporting from Haiti. The NED is another place to look for contemporary examples, as they, along with USAID have taken over many of the CIA’s previous covert destabilization programs. The NED is currently establishing a training program for foreign journalists — ostensibly to teach them the virtues of American journalistic standards.
Wonderful piece, Booman!
Right on.
I think Miller worked for the CIA when she was in Cairo, but she went over to the dark side during the Clinton administration. And you nailed it with her co-author. She’s a Woolsey asset. But Woolsey is no longer a CIA guy.
Yea, that makes enormous sense.
& thank you!!! for the cite to the complete Bernstein article. I’d only been able to find excerpts previously.
Here’s a question for you that is coming largely from ignorance:
Do Angleton’s progeny post-Church intersect with the Bush I Iran-Contra cabal?
It’s been a long time since I did any reading on Angleton, & who was aligned with who in that internecine CIA war.
Who else would you associate with Miller/Mylroie/Woolsey? Leddeen?
I’d have to think about the intersection of Angleton to Iran-Contra. Off the top of head, I see nothing.
Casey and Angleton don’t line up neatly in my understanding of the history of the CIA.
But, since you asked, I’ll look into it.
Ledeen predates all of the Woolsey clan, except for a possible connection thru Team B.
And thanks for this. I’ve argued for some time that I thought Judy was a CIA asset in the media.
I also want to point out that Joseph Alsop, the CIA journalist mentioned at the start of this article, was the one who convinced LBJ to form the Warren Commission.
As Finch discovered in V for Vendetta… “everything is connected.” As Booman wrote a while back… “don’t make me connect the dots.”
Alsop owed his career to the CIA. At one time, his homosexuality had been discovered by the Soviets, and they tried to blackmail him. But Joe went to the CIA and they said don’t worry – we’ve got your back. He had a very tight relationship. So his role in the formation of the Warren Commission is intensely interesting in lieu of the CIA’s continuing role as chief suspect.
I attended a conference in DC last year, and for the first time, all the major researchers were speaking in agreement – high level CIA officers, and others, appear to have been directly involved in the assassination of Kennedy.
The coverup was made possible, as was the buildup to the war in Iraq, due to the CIA’s media assets.
Now, there’s a split in the CIA. Some are leaking, some are trying to shut down the leaks. But if from this mess the masses start to learn the nature of how they are controlled, through framing, through language, through carefully falsified news stories, then maybe we will look back on this period as the moment in which Americans woke up and took back their minds as a precursor to taking back their country….
I still see this email as the most fascinating piece in the big puzzle. I rarely see it mentioned though. I wish we had something more definitive.
Did you know David Atlee Phillips wrote a fictional story in which he painted himself as Oswald’s handler??
Did you know that DAP pissed on JFK’s grave because he hated him so much?
Did you know that DAP used the alias Maurice Bishop, according to Jim Hougan – see the sidebar in this article. Maurice Bishop was seen with Oswald just a month before the assassination by another CIA asset.
Oh, and the classic moment – did you know that when the HSCA was questioning him after learning of his lies, he was smoking three cigarettes at once, not even noticing what he was doing? That’s in the notes from the HSCA people interviewing him.
Ok. But who is Raul Salcedo?
That, I can’t answer. Yet!
Well, if you go to Rochester, NY in May, you can ask him directly.
Well, if I could afford to go to New York in May, I’d be going instead to Niagara Falls in July, to see the unveiling of this monument to this terrific inventor.
And wait! Does that mean – are you going????
No. I’m not a JFK investigator and I have only a passing knowledge of the facts in the case.
In fact, the only reason I’ve even been sucked into it at all is because Prouty set up the money laundering system that disguises the CIA’s military budget and I researched that rather extensively.
And of course Prouty thought Lansdale was in on it. That got me thinking about the issue. But, I was born in 1969, so the issue is not the life-shattering event for me that it is for others.
I’m curious, but not curious enough to track down Shawn Phillips and ask him Raul is.
colour me flabbered….
his fan forum is earlymorninghours yahoo group, if you want to go there, i believe he reads it.
he lives in s. africa now.
Great link and definitely the RS article is worth reading in its entirety.
Interestingly however, is the results of the actions of those CIA assets. They smear Allende, who was democratically elected, and whom we know eventually the CIA pushed out of office bodily (killing himself in his office).
What happened next? Decades of tyranny and dictatorship, including the torture of a young Michelle Bachellet. Years later, after Chile finally returns to democracy (no thanks to the CIA), she becomes elected president on a socialist ticket. All of the CIA’s agents and assets simply delayed socialism for a few years.
And that’s just one example. All of the HUMINT the CIA gathered from its journalist assets did nothing to improve the world. All it ever did was gather data (and publish articles) on leaders it wanted to smear or overthrow and never did one thing to enhance the safety or security of the United States. Most famously, it failed to even predict the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The question is not whether Judith Miller was a CIA asset, but why the bloody hell do we let the CIA have journalist assets in the first place. Or why do we let it have such influence on movies and books.
If they want to spy, let them spy! But stop it with the propaganda. It’s time to stop being at war with everyone.
Pax
Want to hear a CLASSIC story???
I met a guy who had produced a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. When he went before the studio to get funding, he took with him a little gift from Oliver Stone, this memo: the CIA’s instructions to its media assets on how to combat discussions of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.
The producer passed around the memo, ran to the bathroom, and came back to find a sullen crowd. What happened?
The guy who wrote that memo for the CIA was in the room! The studio brought him in, a lawyer from the CIA, to vet the documentary and to ensure there was nothing in there the agency would object to!
When the documentary was approved, the producer turned to his wife and said, “We must have gotten it wrong!” (They blamed the assassination on the FBI. So of course the CIA approved it.)