Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Oliver Stone's Response to Philip Zelikow and Max Holland, 2002

  1. #1

    Default Oliver Stone's Response to Philip Zelikow and Max Holland, 2002

    Philip Zelikow was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission. He also wrote a favorable review of one of Max Holland's articles for a CIA publication.

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CI...IA_OStone.html

    Zelikow also wrote a doctoral thesis called "Myth Making and the JFK Assassination"

    Do I think that George Herbert Walker Bush was involved in the JFK Assassination. Yes. Him and Ed Lansdale on the ground in Dallas just before and during 11/22/63. That is why the Bush's have to keep hiring people to keep this covered up for decades. Henry Kissinger, the old Nelson Rockefeller aide, was going to be the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

    Jim Garrison, the KGB, and the CIA

    An open letter to Foreign Affairs magazine

    by Oliver Stone

    The Nation magazine, August 5 /12, 2002





    Last fall, Nation contributing editor Max Holland wrote an article for the ClA publication Studies in Intelligence asserting that former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was duped by a KGB disinformation operation that led him, along with most Americans, to believe that the CIA had been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

    This spring, Foreign Affairs magazine published a generous review of Hollands article. As co-writers of the film JFK, we sent a reply to Foreign Affairs. The editors refused to publish it. We offered to pay for an ad, but Foreign Affairs again refused.

    For the record, here is our reply:

    Dear Editors of Foreign Affairs Philip Zelikow's review of Max Holland's recent article in the CIA publication Studies in Intelligence is a disservice to your readers. Zelikow uncritically accepts Holland's theory that a KGB disinformation operation back in 1967 is at the root of most Americans' current belief that the CIA was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

    Holland's thesis rests on one unproven premise: that the KGB planted a false story in March 1967 in Paese Sera, an Italian leftwing newspaper. The story reported that Clay Shaw, then recently charged with conspiracy to assassinate the President, was a board member of Centro Mondiale Comerciale (CMC), an organization that had been forced out of Italy amid charges that it was a CIA money-laundering front.

    The problem Zelikow ignores is that Holland's only evidence to support his premise is one handwritten note by a KGB defector named Vasili Mitrokhin that "refers to a disinformation scheme in 1967 that involved Paese Sera and resulted in publication of a false story in New York." The note, supposedly summarizing a KGB document that Holland has never seen, does not mention Clay Shaw, Centro Mondiale Comerciale, Jim Garrison, or any specific New York publication.

    Holland speculates that the New York publication may have been the National Guardian, which based an article on the Paese Sera series. But one short article in an obscure left-wing weekly that routinely picked up stories from the international press does not seem like much of an accomplishment for a KGB disinformation operation. There is no evidence that the Guardian article was picked up anywhere else in the U.S.

    Rather than speculate, Holland might have tried to interview the editors of Paese Sera who were responsible for the articles on Centro Mondiale Comerciale, as scholar Joan Mellen has done for her forthcoming biography of Garrison. They would have told him that the six-part series had nothing to do with the KGB or the JFK assassination, that they had never heard of Jim Garrison when they assigned the story six months before, and that they were astonished to see that Shaw might have any connection to the assassination. The articles were actually assigned in the wake of a right-wing coup in Greece and were intended to prevent such a coup in Italy.

    Holland says "everything in the Paese Sera story was a lie." His evidence? A recently released CIA document saying that the Agency itself looked into Paese Sera's allegations. and found that the CIA had no connection to CMC or its parent Permindex. Holland may be willing to accept this as the whole truth, but it is unconvincing to the rest of us who have noticed the Agency's tendency to distance itself from its fronts, to release to the public only documents that serve its interest, to fabricate evidence, and to lie outright even under oath to congressional committees.

    Two important facts from the Paese Sera story remain true:

    1. CMC was forced to leave Italy (for Johannesburg, South Africa) in 1962 under a cloud of suspicion about its CIA connections.

    2. Clay Shaw was a member of CMC's board, along with such well-known fascist sympathizers as Gutierrez di Spadaforo, undersecretary of agriculture for Mussolini; Ferenc Nagy, former premier of Hungary, and Giuseppe Zigiotti, president of the Fascist National Association for Militia Arms.

    Holland claims that the Paese Sera articles were what led Garrison to believe the CIA was involved in the assassination. This is nonsense. Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins describes in detail how his uncovering of various pieces of evidence actually led him to the conclusion that the CIA was involved. This gradual process began two days after the assassination when he questioned David Ferrie, a pilot who flew secret missions to Cuba for the CIA and trained Lee Harvey Oswald in his Civil Air Patrol unit. It included his investigation of a 1961 raid of a munitions cache by CIA operatives in Houma, Louisiana; the discovery that several of Oswald's co-workers at Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans now worked at NASA; the fact that Oswald was working out of an office that was running the CIA's local training camp for Operation Mongoose; many eyewitnesses who saw Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Oswald together, etc. No doubt the Paese Sera series was another piece of the puzzle for Garrison, but it was not the centerpiece of his thinking that Holland makes it out to be.

    From the moment his investigation of the JFK assassination became public, Garrison was pilloried in the press. This treatment was part of an orchestrated effort by the CIA to discredit critics of the Warren Commission. A CIA memo dated April 1, 1967, never mentioned by Holland or Zelikow, outlines the strategy and calls for the Agency's "assets" in the media (writers and editors) to publish stories saying the critics were politically motivated, financially motivated, egomaniacal, sloppy in their research, supported the Soviet Union, etc. This is exactly the inaccurate portrait of Garrison that emerged in the press.

    With the publication of Holland's recent article attempting to link Jim Garrison to the KGB, the CIA continues to pursue this misguided strategy of smearing Garrison and other critics of the Warren Commission. Fortunately, the American public has never bought the tired old lie that the CIA's misadventures can be written off as figments of KGB disinformation. Too bad your critic did.



    Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar co-writers of the film JFK

  2. Default

    BY the way, the significance of this letter is that it was the beginning of the end for Max Holland at The Nation.

    It is quite disturbing of course that under both Navasky and Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the policy was always more or less anti JFK and no conspiracy.

    Navasky had no trouble defending Alger Hiss to his grave, and beyond. But whatever one thinks of the Hiss case, the evidence for a conspiracy in the JFK case was even more overwhelming.

    And Vanden Heuvel's father actually worked for RFK in 1968.

    I should add The Nation's policy on this goes back to even before Navasky. Carey McWilliams refused to publish Mark Lane's initial defense of Oswald. So he had to publish it in the National Guardian. McWilliams then endoresed the Warren COmmission in 1964 through the infamous editorial written by Prof. Andrew Hacker, who woudl later guide Edward Epstein's master's thesis which became Inquest.

    Then, Fred Cook, perhaps the finest investigative journalist of the era, decided to do a report on the Warren Commission. He had to fight for months to get permission to write it. And then, McWiliams allowed a reply to it. Cook was ready to resign.

    This has always been quite puzzling to me. Which is why I have never been a member of this doctrinaire left in this country. They can't see the forest for the trees.

    THey therefore left a huge opening for ALex Jones. ANd he took it.

  3. #3

    Default "History Will Not Absolve Us" by Martin Schotz

    Alex Jones is a tremendously more accurate on the JFK assassination than the NY Times, the Nation, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, ABC, NBC, CBS and especially Foreign Affairs... and the Huffington Post!! (and the New Republic, ad infinitum, American Spectator, Human Events, Wash Post, WSJ, USA Today...)

    The CIA likes to control BOTH the left and right and to promote the false left/right paradigm. Because it owns the leadership of both. Perfect example the Bushes and the Clintons - those are 2 heavy CIA political families.

    If you want to read more about the Left's tragic and pathetic buy-in to the LIES of the JFK assassination, just read the absolutely classic book History Will Not Absolve Us by Martin Schotz. This book is a must buy!

    http://www.amazon.com/History-Will-N.../dp/0965381404

  4. Default

    Yes, Schotz did a nice job on that.

    Probe excerpted the Schotz book largely on that section written by Schotz and Ray Marcus.

    Marcus BTW exposed the perifdy of Noam Chumsky once and for all in his piece. How Chumksy actually was convinced by Marcus that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. But he begged off leading a campaign to expose it. He later then lied about what he actually believed.

  5. Default Sad and true.

    The fact that Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura find support for pseudo...well, everything, comes as the result of a vacuum where an otherwise coherent, progressive, and informed alternative could exist.

    How sad, really, that the kind of intelligent dialogue and debate which was in evidence, at least to some extent, during the era of Buckley, Vidal, Kennedy's and Goldwater has all but dissolved.

    If given the gift of seeing 50 years ahead to our time, I sincerely doubt Richard Hofstadter would believe or comprehend the anti-intellectualism in American Life as it exists on today's national political stage.
    www.jfkessentials.com
    Where Angels Tread Lightly, 2015, John M. Newman
    State Secret, 2013, Bill Simpich
    Oswald and the CIA, 2008 ed., John M. Newman
    Deep Politics and DP ll, 2003 ed., Peter Dale Scott
    Our Man In Mexico... 2008, Jefferson Morley
    Wilderness of Mirrors, 1980, David C. Martin
    JFK and Vietnam, 1992, John M. Newman
    Enemy of the Truth...2012, Sherry P. Fiester

  6. Default

    Yep, you can say that again.

    And I should add, the Nation, plus Cockburn and Chumsky have made it almost an article of faith among their followers, like David Barsamian, not to take the JFK case seriously and that we are all deluded nuts.

    The vehemence with which this is held is really scary.

    Anton batey, is a newbie follower of theirs. CTKA will be doing an expose on him soon. The thing about Batey is that he is a devoted follower of McAdams and Von Pein. At least on JFK.

    The enemy of thine enemy is my friend.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Dale View Post
    The fact that Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura find support for pseudo...well, everything, comes as the result of a vacuum where an otherwise coherent, progressive, and informed alternative could exist.

    How sad, really, that the kind of intelligent dialogue and debate which was in evidence, at least to some extent, during the era of Buckley, Vidal, Kennedy's and Goldwater has all but dissolved.

    If given the gift of seeing 50 years ahead to our time, I sincerely doubt Richard Hofstadter would believe or comprehend the anti-intellectualism in American Life as it exists on today's national political stage.
    Yes, the standard of public discourse on important subjects is very poor and anti-intellectualism is rampant. Even amongst 'intellectuals'.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  8. #8

    Default

    trying a photo, max holland, it it does not take nothing lost...:popworm:when enlarged i have no idea where the line comes from but no matter, not on him...b now you see it now you don't it is gone...:popworm:
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. Default

    Tell you a story about mad Max.

    When he was subscribing to Probe, I decided to do a little research on him.

    I learned all about his time at the Miller Research Center under Zelikow. I put two and two together and decided I could not in good conscience send him the magazine. So I wrote him and returned his check.

    He wrote me back this long letter showing that somehow Miller Research was on the up and up etc. He then said that if I decided to cut him off, he would resort to using a phony name! THat is how bad he wanted to stay on the roster! Sort of like Bugliosi--got to know what the other side is doing.

  10. Default Holland Tunnel Vision

    Robert, you've revealed a major weapon of the Warrenati: project paranoia, accuse Kennedy:

    In his articles in The Nation, American Heritage Magazine[155] and elsewhere, Holland follows a path Alex Cockburn blazed in The Nation in the early 1990s: As a “functional representative”[156] of American elites, the deceitful and arrogant, and “always hawkish,” Kennedy was an enthusiastic manifestation of America’s powerful militaristic inclinations. He in no way represented a change in America’s direction--whether on Vietnam, on Cuba, or on the Cold War. In Holland’s world, the Kennedys themselves bear the greatest responsibility for not only the President’s death but also the weaknesses of the controversial investigation of it in 1964: Kennedy’s rabid anti-Castroism provoked an unstable Castroite to take his revenge. After that, the family hobbled the government’s no-holds-barred investigation to protect the daft myth of Camelot.



    Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and the Nation
    by Gary L. Aguilar
    http://www.ctka.net/pr900-holland.html



    In which Holland smears Garrison, and blames the skepticism and paranoia re le affaire Kennedy on RFK.
    Holland holds CIA harmless.


    In the manner of Hunt, Eduardo Howard, who managed to fall like Saddam in the square, pointing away from Langley to the last gasp.


    Oh no, there was no change in foreign policy; that Kennedy was a Cold War hawk, blah blah, blah blah blah, rinse, repeat.


    In The Assassinations, Jim DiEugenio gives a hint of the op mounted against Garrison involving CIA lawyers for Shaw, ten moles, a teletype in the Agency's New Orleans office, and Helms (the Man Who Kept the Secrets and Lied Til His Nose Entered an Adjacent Zip Code) inquiring of his morning briefees after the welfare of “our people down there.”


    Alan, you pine for the days of debate of Buckley and Vidal, and you know as well as all of us Buckley was serving the Agency from his beginning, and Vidal was the sand grain becoming the pearl with public anger and quiet scholarship, e.g., The Art and Arts of E. Howard Hunt.


    They tell you a beautiful story, but it isn't the truth,” she said of the King of Nepal and his brother.


    Holland airbrushing history, with Posner, Epstein, any number who've taken the Agency's shilling.


    Was Oswald in Mexico City. Why no photo; why no recording. Where is the proof beyond the reasonable doubt.


    Holland cannot dismiss the ninety-per cent choosing the coup solution with his assertion of Kennedy's hawkishness, RFKs secretiveness, Garrison's gullibility before the KGB, and the lucky double-shot of the loony Castro-loving loner.


    Holland hollers, "Paranoia! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

    Too late, Max. The curtain rods are out, and you're left holding the bag.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •