JFK's support for De Gaulle versus CIA-OAS

[Paul Rigby]

[size=12]The next day, the leftist Italian newspaper,

[/SIZE][size=12]Il Paese
[/SIZE]

[size=12], stated that “It is not by chance[/SIZE]

[size=12]that some people in Paris are accusing the
American secret service headed by Allen Dulles
of having participated in the plot of the four
‘ultra’ generals.” Dulles expressed the opinion
that “This particular myth was a Communist

plant, pure and simple.”
[/SIZE]
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/is..._22-23.pdf

CIA was industrious in spreading the line that it was all a got-up Commie plot. Happily, not everyone was buying:

From our own correspondent (Washington, May 2), "U.S. Support For French Generals' Revolt/Mr.Allen Dulles' Denial," The Times, 3 May 1961, p.10:

Mr. Allen Dulles, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, today appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee for Latin America to explain the part his agency played in the Cuban fiasco. He appeared at a time when persistent reports from France that the CIA supported the revolt of the generals in Algeria continue to embarrass the Administration.

The reports, which appear to have been originated in the Soviet press, have been repeated and enlarged by French newspapers, and the White House thought it necessary to make discrete inquiries. The anti-communist fervour of the CIA agents is legendary, and it is a comment on the ways of this city that the Administration was obviously not at all certain whether some secret crusader had decided it was necessary to depose General de Gaulle in order to make North Africa safe for freedom and the capitalist system.

Inquiries among staffs

The State Department made inquiries among the staffs of its embassy and agencies in France and North Africa without uncovering a plot, but it is well known that CIA men rarely bother to inform the ambassador of their activities. The inquiry was extended to the CIA, and Mr. Dulles yesterday issued a solemn denial. ‘Any reports or allegations that the CIA may or any of its personnel had anything to do with the generals’ revolt were completely untrue,’ Mr. Dulles said.

But, alas, according to the New York Times, French opinion, both official and public, appears to believe that Mr. Dulles is only dutifully playing his part in an elaborate plot. Irritation in the Administration is reported because French officials are believed to be fanning suspicion instead of denying the reports.
Presumably the reports are untrue, but the fact of the matter is that no reporter can categorically state that they are. Cuba, Guatemala, and a number of other CIA episodes remind him that nothing can be certain in the jungle of suspicion created by the agency. The dilemma should caution the Administration, busy with its plan for unconventional and subversive war.

Cuba Fiasco

The search for a culprit for the Cuba fiasco continues both in and out of Congress. Apart from the hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee for Latin America, as usual those involved have counter-attacked with discreet but newspaper reports. President Kennedy’s efforts to maintain the unity of his Administration by assuming full responsibility have to that extent failed; the victim of Cuba might well be the bright promise of this Administration.

The Pentagon counter-attacked in the Baltimore Sun today when an unnamed military gentleman claimed that Cuba was military business. The trouble, as he saw it, was that the dominant influence upon Washington thinking, and quite probably American thinking for several years, had been that of intellectuals basically opposed in principle and practice to the concept of military force.

There is no end in sight to this kind if thing, but Mr. Walter Lippmann devoted his column today to a proposal that does not appear to have occurred to many of those involved. Mr. Lippmann proposed that after a disaster of this kind the mistake can be purged and confidence restored only by resignation.

Confidence shaken

Unlike the British system, Mr. Lippman continued, the chief executive does not and cannot resign, but if there is to be accountability the President must hold responsible those whose constitutional or statutory duty it is to advise him. It is a painful business but the confidence of the American people and their friends throughout the world is at stake.

If Mr. Lippmann’s advice has not been taken the upper layer of the Administration has been given a discreet shake, and men such as Mr. Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General and the President’s brother, Mr. Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State, and Mr. Ted Sorensen, the President’s chief assistant, are among those who appear to have come out on top. Mr. Allen Dulles, Mr. Richard Bissell, Jnr., his deputy, General Lymnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some of President Kennedy’s advisers from Harvard have been, it would appear, submerged.