CIA Instructions to Media Assets

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with (?)and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

SOURCE: http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/national/general/cia-instructions-to-media-assets-doc-1035-960/80/6210620

From 2003, first OP on DU I could find on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x765619

The Minister of Diz at Dealey Plaza

by William Kelly

TODD LEVENTHAL – MINISTER OF DISINFORMATION

EXCERPT...

That the United States doesn’t engage in such psychological warfare is an urban myth quickly dispelled by Todd Leventhal, America’s Minister of Disinformation, whose official title is State Department Counter-Mis and Disinformation Officer. As such Leventhal has been the subject of a spate of recent publicity, especially in regards to debunking conspiracy theories.

We’ve heard from Leventhal before, pushing the Bush foreign agenda, disputing reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq was a false pretense for war, and more recently as the State Department’s spokesman designated to officially debunk conspiracy theories that the federal government considers serious threats—like UFOs, faked moon landings, 9/11 missiles and President Obama’s birth certificate.

Leventhal’s official blog on debunking such “conspiracy theories” serves as fodder for legitimate journalists looking for a good column when news is slow, but most real conspiracy theorists considered him just another media spokesperson for the government, not unlike those who speak for the al Quada and the Taliban, and trusted as much.

But Leventhal recently created a mini-firestorm when some mainstream publications began commenting on his inclusion of the assassination of President Kennedy among the “conspiracy theories” worth debunking, and his ridicule of those who believe anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the murder of Kennedy.

As the official State Department specialist and spokesperson whose job is to counter-misinformation and disinformation, Leventhal’s blog (since suspended but archived under Rumors, Myths and Fabrications1) touches on a number of controversial subjects, including AIDS, the moon landing and the war in Iraq, but the subject of the Kennedy assassination seems to have struck the most sensitive nerve.

THE MIS & THE DISINFORMED

On Leventhal’s official State Department web site, under the banner of “Countering Misinformation,” it is noted that, “The purpose of this webpage is to counter misinformation,” which is defined in parenthesis as “unintentional mistakes.” Their mission is also to counter “conspiracy theories, urban legends, and disinformation,” which also rates the definition of “deliberate falsehoods and distortions.”

Originally disinformation, as explained by John Barron2, was defined as not only “deliberate falsehoods and distortions,” but contained the caveat that the deliberate falsehoods and distortions were the product of a foreign intelligence network.

It was technically defined as “Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency for the purpose of influencing public opinion or the government in another nation.”

http://www.ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html

EXCERPT...

This is what Arthur Krock wrote, published in The New York Times on October 3, 1963: "A very high American official -- and he was talking about John Kennedy -- has said the CIA's growth was likened to a malignancy, which was, the very high official said, was not sure even the White House could control.” And this very high official, probably the president, said. And was published, as I said, in The New York Times, October 3, 1963. “If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The CIA represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”

That's what was said in October. And the president was killed the following month.

The Warren Commission never called Arthur Krock to ask him who the official was; How come he could predict the assassination a month before it took place? or predict something happening; and who the high official was? The high official was John Kennedy. But, that has not been said (in the media). And so we have the government issuing a statement which is untrue. And then we have the news media accepting it and allowing no dissent.

No dissent. For one year, a full year after the assassination of the president, not one question was asked of the government or published anywhere in any newspaper, radio station, television station. Not one question about the validity of the government's investigation. Not one question.

I'd like to believe that now with the internet and instant communication we have all around the the whole world, that if that happened today, it would be very hard to keep it a secret. But, you can count on the fact that people will continue to try that, if events have to be covered up from their viewpoint.

And as I said, there was -- their statement (the Warren Commission’s) was, “Our position is that we must reassure the American people.” And Earl Warren came out and when he was asked, "When will we get the truth?” He said, “You may never get it in your lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of Americans might die if the facts came out.”

And so, he was terrified. The hundreds of Americans he was talking about was World War III, which was going to break out, if they told the truth. This was what the Warren Commission was told. It took me years to get (FOIA) transcripts of the in-house meetings of the commission.

But, this is what they were told: that Lee Harvey Oswald, according to the CIA, went to Mexico City in October, 1963. He then visited the two agencies there -- he visited the Soviet embassy, he was in the Soviet Union, and the Cuban embassy. And it's clear that he was planning after he killed -- this was in October, when he was there, they said -- he was planning to go to Cuba and from Cuba -- go from Mexico City after the assassination -- Oswald was -- and go to Cuba from Mexico City and then fly on to the Soviet Union. That's the story that was told to the Warren Commission.

And the CIA went on to say, however: “We don't believe that the Russians or the Cubans were in any way involved. But, if the story gets out, people will not believe us. And that's why hundreds of thousands of Americans will die in a war which is going to take place. That's what they told Earl Warren and scared him. He really was frightened by this.

The trouble was the story was a fabrication. Oswald had not been to Mexico City.

The person who designed that whole story was a man named David Atlee Phillips, who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the entire western hemisphere from his office in Mexico City.

Not long before he died, in the last seven years (or so) ago, he said that, I was at USC and appeared on the program with him) he said that, in fact, Oswald never was in Mexico City -- which destroyed the entire story which had been told to the Warren Commission.

When that was reported, an apologist for the Warren Commission said, “Well, it was because, yes, he said it, we can't deny that he said it.” This was well-publicized, this statement. “But the fact is that Mark Lane had subjected him to a cruel, grueling cross examination and confused him and that's why he said it.”

It was a (1977) meeting at USC (University of Southern California). I was on the panel and he was on the panel. I directed no question to him at all. And a student got up at the end and raised the subject, which I had not, that was: “Can you tell us about Mexico City, Mr. Phillips?" There was no cross examination. It was just the kid asking the question. And that's when Phillips said, "Oswald was never there."

And so the cover-up was that I had subjected him to this cross examination that wasn't. Of course, I didn't ask him anything. It was the student that said it. But that became the mantra of the Establishment to try to explain how the man who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the United States (in the hemisphere) and elsewhere and did it from his office in Mexico City, made that statement, because of my brilliant cross-examination, although I never asked him the question.

And so here we are now, 50 years later, almost 50 years later, and there still are files which are classified. We don't even know the number, but we know there are in the tens of thousands of documents, that are classified by reasons of national security. Which obviously makes no sense, 50 years later. Never made any sense at the time because they were saying Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. But anyway, even if made sense, then what issue of national security can possibly still be involved?

Well it's a question of CIA’s security. If the American people were told then or were even told now the truth about who killed their president, that would be the end of the CIA.

Most of the people who were involved are dead; in fact, maybe all of them. I know some names, but I don’t (name them). I'm a lawyer and I believe in our system of justice. I've never spoken out the name of any one individual who i believe is a suspect in the case because I think that our system is: Nobody is guilty in this country, each person is presumed to be innocent, even when they've been indicted, it is unfair to give up our whole judicial system in this one instance by saying yes, so-and-so probably did it. Guilt is determined by a jury or a plea of guilty or if you waive a jury, by a judge. The outcome is the result of a judicial proceeding. That is crucial to who we are, not every country has this blessing, which was handed down to us by the founders at the very beginning.

CONTINUED...

War Is Still A Racket

by Ed Rippy

www.globalresearch.ca, 25 August 2003

September 11 2001 — we hear over and over — changed everything. In the "War On Terrorism," says President Bush, anyone who isn’t with "us" is with the terrorists. Afghanistan and Iraq are now US clients or protectorates. But a deeper look shows that except for the details and the players, nothing has changed at all.

In the early 1930s Major General Smedley Butler, retired from thirty-three years in the US Marine Corps, had a fit of realization and then a fit of honesty. He began making speeches and published a book, all telling a fundamental, ugly, and timeless truth: War Is A Racket.1 Seventy years later, The Racket is going stronger than ever. It is not so much a conspiracy as a combination political philosophy and business model.

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in," confessed Butler. The National City Bank’s descendent, Citigroup, is now the biggest bank in the world2 — and the eleventh biggest corporation — and collects revenues in over a hundred "decent places" including Angola, Vietnam, Panama, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia3 — all of which (like most of the world) have had Butler's successors on the scene to keep them "decent."

"I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912," Butler relates, and within years Brown Brothers, by then merged with the Harriman Co., helped pay Hitler’s Wehrmacht to "purify" Europe. Prescott Bush, later a US Senator and then both father and grandfather of US Presidents, ran the New York office of this piece of The Racket.4

"In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." Later on, the Chinese "molested" Standard Oil, but now they are finding their place in The Racket: the Chinese Academy of Sciences owns part of a company which is in a consortium which has bought the manufacturer of critical parts for US "precision" weapons — and is relocating the factory to China.5

The Racket works in many ways. First it funnels money from taxpayers and consumers to banks and big business. Butler gives some examples from World War I (the numbers have been adjusted for inflation using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics calculator):6

"Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people . . . . How did they do in the war?. . . Eight hundred and twelve million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times. . . .

" 1910–1914 yearly earnings averaged $84,000,000. . . . Then came the war. . . . heir 1914–1918 average was $686,000,000 a year!. . .

"Or, let’s take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $1,470,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914–1918 was $3,360,000,000. Not bad."

But "If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. . . . those little secrets never become public. . . ."

FASCISM AND THE RACKET

Powerful Racketeers from US business, political, and military circles have wanted a global fascist order for a long time. (For example, in the mid-1930s, vice-president of General Motors Graeme K. Howard wrote a book titled America and a New World Order, which described the glories of an international fascist regime led by the US.) IBM, ITT, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Ford, General Motors, The Chase Bank, the National City Bank of New York (now Citibank/Citigroup), and other US businesses and banks funded Hitler before and during World War II.7 (As we noted above, Prescott Bush, G. W. Bush’s grandfather, funneled money to the Nazis from New York.8) They also supplied trucks, oil, aircraft engines, communications equipment, transportation, and propaganda to the fascist powers. Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles, who later became head of the CIA and Secretary of State respectively, were heavily involved in this collaboration. Some of these fascists actually plotted a military coup against President Roosevelt, but it was discovered.9 After the war, the US fascists saw to it that most of the Nazi industrialists — and their capital equipment — remained in place. (The British foreign policy elite, led by the "Round Table" founded by Cecil Rhodes, had secretly wanted to give Nazi Germany enough of Europe to make it a strong bulwark against Communism, but wanted to avoid war.10)

The Office of Naval Intelligence recruited the Mafia to control the New York waterfront and help plan the invasion of Italy. The US military also installed Mafia chiefs as mayors of many towns and cities in Italy (they had set them up as an occupation force to release US troops for the European theater of war). Under Lucky Luciano, the Mafia rebuilt its heroin trade, expanding into Marseille (we shall revisit this in a later section). The Mafia also guarded against Socialist and Communist resurgence, a great aid to US foreign policy. King Ibn Saud (of Saudi Arabia) had supported Hitler; right after the war FDR cut a deal with him (and some other Arab heads of state). The CIA, which adopted hundreds of Nazi spies, scientists, and military officers, set up a fascist network in the Middle East to assure control of oil supplies and to counter Soviet influence. It also brought many Nazis to the US and to South America.

One of the Nazis US Racketeers spirited away to South America was Klaus Barbie. Known as "The Butcher of Lyons," he helped set up the infamous "School of the Americas," a training center for torture and repression, for the US army in the Panama Canal Zone.11 (The school later moved to Fort Benning, GA, and has changed its name to the "Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Co-operation.&quot Barbie’s mercenaries, wearing Swastika armbands, carried out the bloody "Cocaine Coup" of 1980 — the first time in history that an entire government had been bought by drug dealers, according to a State Dept. diplomat. This was part of a regional plan of the US military — involving six South American governments — to rid the continent of "leftists."12

CONTINUED...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIP308B.html