Page 1 of 3
Carter v CIA
Posted:
Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:53 pm
by Tinker
I am starting a new thread to talk about Jimmeh v HW. Perhaps Skyhook has something to talk about, because it seems like many of the people on this forum are unaware of Jimmy Carter going toe to toe with the CIA, and ultimately...losing.
Jimmy Carter fired a lot of the CIA, who were able to resume their jobs when Reagan/Bush took the White House back.
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:15 am
by skyhook77sfg
James Earl Carter and Jack Fitzgerald Kennedy shared similar views on the central inteligence agency. Both experienced unpleasant consequences as a result.
Kennedy's reported statement that he would 'splinter the Cia into a thousand pieces" and his firing of Director Allen Dulles, the old spymaster, did not sit well with many CIA veterans. His termination of CIA responsibiliity for overall directiion of paramilitary operations in SE Asia (Laos/Vietnam) further aggrevated an already antagonistic relationship especially in the Directorate of Operations where covert were conceived and controlled, such as the Bay of Pigs to overthrow Castro's regime in Cuba (Operation Zapata), Operation PBFortune to negate the election of President Arbenz in Guatemala and Operation Ajax to void the election of Mossadegh and reinstall the Pahlavi shahs in Iran.
After the earlier success in Iran and Guatemala, the total failure in Cuba was blamed by both American and Cuban operatives on Kennedy's cancellation of air strikes to support the 1200 invading Cubans that were than captured or killed. This would play a large role in susequent events.
Carter has been much maligned, even ridiculed by many over the years. Yet insiders expressed high regard for his abilities early in his relations with the agency. One of the CIA oficers that briefed Carter when he was the Democratic nominee recorded:
"I was impressed with Carter. He was a very, very quick study, able to digest immediately everything we gave him--fact
after fact. He seemed to have a photographic memory and would often repeat back to us the points we had made to be
absolutely sure that he understood. He used his very detailed questions to be certain he understood the nuances, which he
described with precision when he rephrased the points we had made."
.
Wayne Wolfe 13 December 1993.
It's important to recall who was the Director Central Intelligence, the DCI, at the time of Carter's election. George Bush had been diverted to the DCI post by White House of Staff Rumsfeld's maneuvering to sideline him from politics. Since it was established preceeden to keep the DCI in place, Bush was jolted by Carter's request for his resignation. Carter tapped JFK speechwriter Ted Sorenson for DCI but he withdrew because of difficulties with congressional approval. Carter then reached out to a Naval Academy classmate...athelete, Rhodes scholar and 4 star Admiral Stansfield Turner. Turner took an analytic approach to the agency that challenged traditional assumptions, raised eyebrows and hackles and a very unwelcome reception. The naval officers he brought in as aides were regarded with scorn.
More significant was Sunday School teacher Carter's character and mindset. In the words of long time agency officer Miles Copeland:
“Carter really believed in all the principles that we talk about in the West. As smart as Carter is, he did believe in Mom, apple pie and the corner drug store. And those things that are good in America are good everywhere else. Carter, I say, was not a stupid man. He had an even worse flaw: He was a principled man.”
The Carter/Turner adminstration proceeded to terminate many of the Directorate of Operations personnel, especially veterans of Vietnam operations. They even pink slipped legend in his own time Ted Shackley, the Blonde Ghost,the hard drinking hard charging man with 2 pearl handled .45's who tapped Soviet military communications through a cross border tunnel in Berlin and then was chief of station Vietnam. Good old Tom Clines was out too.
Most of the CIA within the CIA that some have called the Secret Team was fired. These were the Old Boys, the inner-most intelligence operratives who felt they fully understood the strategic needs of the United States. And they concluded Carter and his naïve faith in American democratic ideals represented a grave threat to the nation's interests.
The grumbling began in earnest. Carter stopped supporting the agency's man in Nicaragua, president cum dictator Somoza. And when Carter refused to allow the Shah entry to the US, all hell broke loose. Carter remained adament until Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller paid him a visit and explained the facts of life to the Sunday school teacher. Informed sources suggest a form of blackmail was required. The Shah's arrival in the US led as all know to the Teheran embassy takeover and lengthy hostage situation, a failed rescue attempt and ulitmately to Carter's reelection defeat.
Many of the disgruntled former employees worked actively for Reagan's election campaign, using old contacts to insure the hostages were not freed under Carter's watch. Consistent rumors revolve around a deal struck by Bush and DCI to be Casey
with the Iranians to free the hostages upon the Reagan/Bush inauguration in a manner to be repeated later...arms for hostages held in Lebanon. With Carter's departure from the White House, the Old Boys returned to their old offices in triumph.
Carter, defeated by dedicated professionals, was however lucky.
Kennedy was not.
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:54 am
by CgDs
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:06 am
by AzariLoveIran
.
Americans often believe CIA is an intelligence agency .. meaning CIA gathers information and makes (policy) suggestion to president .. and based on that CIA suggestions the president makes foreign policy decisions.
This not the case ..
American government strategic decisions re foreign policy for a region (or country) has nothing to do with any intelligence about that region (or country)
As a sample, America has a major plan for Central Asia / Afghanistan / Pakistan .. that major plan is based on energy policy and other strategic considerations .. any CIA info re that region is immaterial, whether Afghani or Paki love or hate America has no impact on decision
Notion America did not know (meaning CIA failed to inform) what overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran (down the road) could lead to (meaning Khomeini episode) is BS .. American government knew perfectly but did not care, short term gain, who cares down the road was the mindset.
What is the role of CIA ?
CIA job is : To facilitate implementing American foreign policy decisions, AND not, coming with suggestions whether American foreign policy wise or not wise and and and
What is the consequence of this ?
Consequence is, CIA more and more a military arm, a clandestine one, and, less an intelligence agency.
In that sense, CIA, as an intelligence agency, does not exist anymore .. American military has now lots of saboteurs and hit-man, no need for CIA.
.
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:13 am
by skyhook77sfg
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:29 am
by skyhook77sfg
AZARI
can a talysh speaker understand a dari speaker from afghanistan?
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:58 am
by AzariLoveIran
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:35 pm
by CgDs
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:20 am
by skyhook77sfg
indicate the trail you'ld like to sniff out
and we'll see what we can do for you
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:24 am
by Azrael
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:14 am
by Endovelico
It's difficult to decide which conspiracy theories are true, and which are not. But seeing how poorly Obama has performed, one is tempted to think that maybe he is being blackmailed/kept under control by some of the so-called intelligence institutions in DC. Having two young daughters I guess he doesn't want to end up like Kennedy...
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:18 pm
by Tinker
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:42 pm
by Endovelico
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:11 pm
by Tinker
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:00 am
by Endovelico
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:17 pm
by Tinker
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:40 am
by Demon of Undoing
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:28 pm
by Colonel Sun
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:33 pm
by Tinker
Sure there are certainly justifiable disappointments in Obama. But a lot of the expectations the left had of Obama are for things he never actually promised in his campaigns.
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:58 pm
by Endovelico
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:12 pm
by skyhook77sfg
some additional background on the shadow govt types who helped arrange the sunday school president's removal as an obstacle to their aims by john simkin....
John McCloy developed a close relationship with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah of Iran), who gained power in Iran during the Second World War. McCloy's legal firm, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, provided legal counsel to Pahlavi. The Chase International Investment Corporation, which McCloy established in the 1950s, had several joint ventures in Iran.
McCloy was also chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank. Pahlavi had a personal account with the bank. So also did his private family trust, the Pahlavi Foundation. Kai Bird (The Chairman: John J. McCloy: The Making of the American Establishment) has argued: "Each year, the bank handled some $2 billion in Iranian Eurodollar transactions, and throughout the 1970s Iran had at least $6 billion on deposit at various branches around the world." As one financial commentator pointed out: "Iran became the crown jewel of Chase's international banking portfolio."
In January 1978, mass demonstrations took place in Iran. McCloy became concerned that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would be overthrown. This was a major problem as outstanding loans to the regime amounted to over $500 million. McCloy went to see Robert Bowie, deputy director of the CIA. Bowie, who had just returned from Iran, was convinced that the communist Tudeh Party was behind the protests and were guilty of manipulating the Fedayeen and Mujahadeen. Over the next few months, McCloy organized a campaign to persuade President Jimmy Carter to protect the regime. This included David Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger making deputations to the administration.
Despite the fact that Iranian troops had killed over 10,000 demonstrators during the disturbances, on 12th December, 1978, President Carter issued a statement saying: "I fully expect the Shah to maintain power in Iran... I think the predictions of doom and disaster that come from some sources have certainly not been realized at all. The Shah has our support and he also has our confidence."
The following month Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled the country and on 1st February, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to form a new government.
McCloy asked President Jimmy Carter to allow the Shah to live in the United States. Carter refused because he had told by his diplomats in Iran that such a decision might encourage the embassy being stormed by mobs. As a result McCloy made preparations for the Shah to stay in the Bahamas. David Rockefeller arranged for his personal assistant at Chase Manhattan, Joseph V. Reed, to manage the Shah's finances.
Rockefeller also established the highly secret, Project Alpha. The main objective was to persuade Carter to provide a safe haven for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (code-named "Eagle"). McCloy, Rockefeller and Kissinger were referred to as the "Triumvirate". Rockefeller used money from Chase Manhattan Bank to pay employees of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy who worked on the project. Some of this money was used to persuade academics to write articles defending the record of Pahlavi. For example, George Lenczowski, professor emeritus at the University of California, was paid $40,000 to write a book with the "intention to answer the shah's critics".
Kissinger telephoned Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to Carter, on 7th April, 1979, and berated the president for his emphasis on human rights, which he considered to be "amateurish" and "naive". Brzezinski suggested he talked directly to Carter. Kissinger called Carter and arranged for him to meet David Rockefeller, two days later. Gerald Ford also contacted Carter and urged him to "stand by our friends".
McCloy, Rockefeller and Kissinger arranged for conservative journalists to mount an attack on Carter over this issue. On 19th April, George Will wrote about Carter and the Shah and said; "It is sad that an Administration that knows so much about morality has so little dignity."
On 19th April, Rosalynn Carter wrote in her diary: We can't get away from Iran. Many people - Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Howard Baker, John McCloy, Gerald Ford - all are after Jimmy to bring the shah to the United States, but Jimmy says it's been too long, and anti-American and anti-shah sentiments have escalated so that he doesn't want to. Jimmy said he explained to all of them that the Iranians might kidnap our Americans who are still there."
McCloy had meetings with President Carter in the White House on 16th May and 12th June where he outlined his reasons for providing the Shah with sanctuary. Carter listened politely to his arguments but refused to change his mind.
During the summer of 1979 McCloy contacted Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance, Walter Mondale and Dean Rusk about the Shah being allowed to live in the United States. McCloy told them that Carter's refusal to provide sanctuary to an old U.S. ally was "ungentlemanly" and dismissed the idea that lives in Iran might be jeopardized. Vance later recalled that: "John (McCloy) is a very prolific letter writer. The morning mail often contained something from him about the Shah".
In July 1979, Mondale and Brzezinski told Jimmy Carter that they had changed their minds and now supported asylum for the Shah. Carter replied: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe." He added that despite the fact that "Kissinger, Rockefeller and McCloy had been waging a constant campaign on the subject" he did not want the Shah "here playing tennis while Americans in Teheran were being kidnapped or even killed."
McCloy then tried another tactic in order to destabilize Carter's administration. In September, a story was leaked that the CIA had "discovered" a Soviet combat brigade in Cuba. It was claimed that this violated the agreement reached during the Cuban Missile Crisis. McCloy, who had negotiated the agreement with Adlai Stevenson and the Soviets in 1962, knew this was not true. The agreement said that only those Soviet troops associated with the missiles had to leave the island. There was never a complete ban on all Soviet troops in Cuba. Therefore the presence of Soviet combat troops in Cuba was not a violation of the 1962 agreement.
In October, 1979, David Rockefeller's assistant, Joseph Reed, called the State Department and claimed that the Shah had cancer and needed immediate treatment in a U.S. medical facility. Cyrus Vance now told Carter that the Shah should be allowed in as a matter of "common decency". Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordon, argued that if the Shah died outside the United States, Kissinger and his friends would say "that first you caused the Shah's downfall and now you've killed him." Carter replied: "What are you guys going to advise me to do if they overrun our embassy and take our people hostage?"
Faced with the now unanimous opposition of his closest advisers, the president reluctantly agreed to admit the Shah. He arrived at New York Hospital on 22nd October, 1979. Joseph Reed circulated a memo to McCloy and other members of Project Alpha: "Our mission impossible is completed. My applause is like thunder." Less than two weeks later, Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and took hostage 66 Americans.
McCloy now persuaded Jimmy Carter to freeze all Iran's assets in the United States. This was the day before Iran's $4.05 million interest payment was due on its $500 million loan. As this was not now paid, Chase Manhattan Bank announced that the Iranian government was in default. The bank was now allowed to seize all of Iran's Chase accounts and used this money to "offset" any outstanding Iranian loans. In fact, by the end of this process, the bank ended up in profit from the deal.
Is it possible that Project Alpha was really about creating a situation where Chase Manhattan could seize Iranian assets rather than to get the Shah into the United States.
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:42 am
by Tinker
Damn dude. That's pretty interesting.
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:37 am
by Demon of Undoing
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:56 am
by skyhook77sfg
YOU'VE PINPOINTED THE TIME AND PLACE OUR ELITE WENT OF COURSE...
and into the ditch, the big muddy, where the more the wheels spin, the deeper they go.
but good old simple plain spoken ike from kansas warned us 50 years ago where all that goes didn't he?
and us common sense common folk just cant seem to get our backbones stiff enough to stand up en masse and say
STOP...ENOUGH ALREADY....CHANGE COURSE NOW... OUR WE WILL COME TO WASHINGTON AND WE WILL CHANGE COURSE FOR YOU.
sad to say my fellow americans.
very sad.
Re: Carter v CIA
Posted:
Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:09 am
by AzariLoveIran