Media reports in the wake of the release of the personnel files of CIA operative George Joannides have unfortunately proven to be inaccurate. This is evidently because the reports are based largely on the assertions of former Washington Post journalist and current conspiracy advocate Jefferson Morley. In fact, the reports read like they could have been written by him.
It seems that Morley is content to let these inaccuracies slip by since it is helpful to his cause. That cause appears to be the spread of misinformation that will help to convince the American public that there was a CIA conspiracy behind the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy and therefore the agency must be severely curtailed if not eliminated.
This article will attempt to set the record straight using facts. The bolded quotes are from the New York Post but are representative of what is out there.
First, some context in the form of one of the few statements that the NYP got mostly right:
Oswald, 23 at the time, got into a fight with members of one of those student groups — the DRE, an organization vehemently-opposed to dictator Fidel Castro’s rule over Cuba — while he was handing out pro-communist leaflets in New Orleans nearly four months before the JFK assassination in Texas.
Correct, except that the fight was with Carlos Bringuier who was an unpaid delegate of the New Orleans branch of the DRE. Morley (and the media by proxy) regularly makes no distinction between Bringuier and his Miami "superiors" who were the agents that the CIA was funding and interacting with.
A shadowy CIA operative specializing in psychological warfare interacted with Lee Harvey Oswald ahead of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination ...
The "shadowy operative" is Joannides. However, the released documents do not prove that he "interacted" with Oswald. In fact, Joannides may have never heard the name "Oswald" before the assassination—only afterward when the DRE phoned him. According to Morley's own 2001 article "Revelation 19.63," one DRE man said Joannides was informed while another had "no specific recollection" that he was. But even if Joannides was told about the fight and Oswald's other pro-Castro exploits beforehand, that does not prove that he did anything about it. Bringuier has always said he acted on his own with only minimal advice from one of the Miami DRE members—but with no direction from Joannides. The following quote is from Bringuier's book Crime and Punishment:
the only person with whom I communicated at that time was with José Antonio González Lanuza [of the Miami DRE] and I have copies of the letters that we interchanged at the time.
In another quote from his book, Bringuier discusses Joannides:
I heard the name Joannides for the first time while researching some of Jefferson Morley's allegations and this was [after] Mr. Joannides had passed away. I never met, talked or had any direct or indirect contact with Mr. George Joannides but these recyclers of lies keep repeating the same lies.
... and then ran interference against congressional investigators probing whether the US spy agency was connected to the killing, newly disclosed documents show.
Again, the documents say nothing new about Joannides' stint as a liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations other than his work was "outstanding" during this "unusual special assignment."
CIA officer George Joannides assumed the alias “Howard Gleber” in January 1963, and led an American effort to infiltrate anti-communist Cuban student groups in the year leading up to JFK’s killing that November, according to government documents released Thursday and reviewed by Axios.
The alias was actually Howard Mark Gebler. And the CIA was funding and assisting the DRE and other anti-Castro groups, not "infiltrating" them.
Many in the conspiracy community are reveling in the apparent confirmation that Joannides was "Howard." But it has been known since 2001 that "Howard" could have been Joannides. One thing that was in dispute was Morley's claim that the 44 Joannides documents he sought would provide "smoking gun proof" of an "Oswald Operation" managed by the CIA. That claim has been shown to be false but Morley's followers seem to be suffering from a form of convenient amnesia in this instance.
Morley and his followers are also enjoying what they see as "proof" that the CIA lied about knowing that Joannides used the "Howard" alias. I would say the jury is still out on that matter. The CIA is not one entity but thousands of people. The CIA of the nineteen fifties was much different that that of the nineties when Morley first interacted with them. How the various CIA researchers saw the Joannides matter and Morley's need to know the details about it likely changed over the years. That said, competent researchers are looking into the Joannides-Howard issue will eventually form an opinion. That opinion will be reported here or at a related blog.
That fight publicly exposed Oswald as a Castro-sympathizer — with news outlets covering a hearing that followed, and the soon-to-be killer later debating DRE members on a local television broadcast, according to Axios.
Oswald exposed himself as a Castro supporter in late 1958 before the bearded leader had even assumed power. So, there was no need for a "legend" to be created as Morley surmises. Oswald also expressed an interest in Marxist philosophies as early as 1953.
A year before that exposure, the Pentagon was looking for excuses to attack Cuba — including plotting a false flag plan known as Operation Northwoods, which drew-up a fake assault on the US that would be blamed on the communist nation.
See this article for a debunking of this notion.
Joannides was assigned to be the CIA’s liaison with the House Select Committee on Assassinations as it probed the president’s murder in 1976, and he openly lied about the identity of “Howard” when questioned. “Joannides assured me that they could find no record of any such officer assigned to DRE, but that he would keep looking,” the House Committees chief counsel Robert Blakely testified in 2014, according to Axios.
Blaley's assertions have recently been called into question.
“The cover story for Joannides is officially dead,” author and JFK assassination’ expert Jefferson Morley told Axios. “This is a big deal. The CIA is changing its tune on Lee Harvey Oswald.”
Morley, who runs a subscription-based Substack page, seeks to convince his readers that he has something big and must continue to do so if he wishes to remain in business. Unfortunately, media outlets do not see that they are being used or don't care because they are getting a story and doing little work for it. If the media really wants the full story, why not contact Carlos Bringuier (who is still alive) or at least get his book? Or why don't they actually read the documents and see if they say what Morley says they do? And why do they remain unconcerned that his past "smoking gun" proclamation is now shown to be false?
... “three top CIA officials lied” to investigators about their knowledge of the assassin beforehand.
This is simply Morley's spin on the matter. First, some small progress has evidently been made since Morley stated to the Luna committee that the three officers lied "under oath." But Joannides, who is currently the subject of all the attention, could not have lied "under oath" since he was never "under oath" regarding the JFK matter. So, perhaps Morley has corrected that at least.
Morley's claims about Helms and Angleton have been discussed HERE.
The sad fact is conspiracy theories sell. But I wish the media would use more care when reporting on these matters. I am very fortunate to work with several of the top JFK researchers in the world today. If there are any real and significant revelations on the Joannides affair, they will be reported accurately here.
Fred Litwin's excellent report on the media coverage of the Joannides files is HERE.
0 comments:
Post a Comment