Are These Dots?

by emptywheel

I read two things this morning that make me want to repeat a question I asked last week. Here's the question I asked:

I wonder, Porter Goss. Two weeks ago, when you fired Mary McCarthy just weeks shy of her retirement, did you have any idea you'd be resigning yourself so quickly?

I'm asking it again partly because I read this Laura Rozen post from today...

In some ways, Wilkes has a lot in common with Jack Abramoff,

[snip]

The most controversial covert policies of that era and this one are connected to the excesses and the corruption we're seeing investigated and exposed now. What's the common theme, between the alleged pay offs and prostitutes and bribery, and running the policies that can't easily withstand public exposure and Congressional scrutiny? It's not an obvious one. Why is it in some ways the more prosaic, superficial issue -- the corruption -- that gets surfaced and investigated -- rather than the policies connected to it?

... and re-read a post she linked to from the end of April:

And from what I've heard of the very large contract Wilkes was in discussions to potentially receive from the CIA, to set up an off the books plane network for the Agency, and Wilkes and Foggo's earlier activities, for instance, supporting covert US efforts to arm and fund the contras, that fits right into the paradigm, the off-the-books secret policy that the tough guys run steering under the radar of a democratic system, with an informal network of friends, profiteers, true believers and wanna-bes on the inside and the outside. Was it just about the money? Or was it about the semi deniable policy within the policy, run by those who had proved themselves over time, from Central America and Afghanistan to cigar-smoke filled Watergate suites, to be reliable members of the club that doesn't overly concern itself with the law? More than that: it's about this club's conviction that the law is an impediment to the national security cause, that the way to run things is through these informal networks.

Laura's suggesting, it seems, that when prosecutors talk about the Cunningham/Wilkes mess being a lot bigger than hookers and French commodes, they're talking about the way this bribery connects to funding and operating illicit foreign policy operations, operations that overstep law and oversight requirements.

Well, after reading those two, I read the superb story on Mary McCarthy in today's WaPo:

A senior CIA official, meeting with Senate staff in a secure room of the Capitol last June, promised repeatedly that the agency did not violate or seek to violate an international treaty that bars cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees, during interrogations it conducted in the Middle East and elsewhere.

But another CIA officer -- the agency's deputy inspector general, who for the previous year had been probing allegations of criminal mistreatment by the CIA and its contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan -- was startled to hear what she considered an outright falsehood, according to people familiar with her account. It came during the discussion of legislation that would constrain the CIA's interrogations.

That CIA officer was Mary O. McCarthy, 61, who was fired on April 20 for allegedly sharing classified information with journalists, including Washington Post journalist Dana Priest. A CIA employee of two decades, McCarthy became convinced that "CIA people had lied" in that briefing, as one of her friends said later, not only because the agency had conducted abusive interrogations but also because its policies authorized treatment that she considered cruel, inhumane or degrading.

Whether McCarthy's conviction that the CIA was hiding unpleasant truths provoked her to leak sensitive information is known only to her and the journalists she is alleged to have spoken with last year. But the picture of her that emerges from interviews with more than a dozen former colleagues is of an independent-minded analyst who became convinced that on multiple occasions the agency had not given accurate or complete information to its congressional overseers.

[snip]

In addition to CIA misrepresentations at the session last summer, McCarthy told the friends, a senior agency official failed to provide a full account of the CIA's detainee-treatment policy at a closed hearing of the House intelligence committee in February 2005, under questioning by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat.

McCarthy also told others she was offended that the CIA's general counsel had worked to secure a secret Justice Department opinion in 2004 authorizing the agency's creation of "ghost detainees" -- prisoners removed from Iraq for secret interrogations without notice to the International Committee of the Red Cross -- because the Geneva Conventions prohibit such practices.

[snip]

McCarthy "was seeing things in some of the investigations that troubled her," said one of her friends, and she worried that neither Helgerson nor the agency's congressional overseers would fully examine what happened or why. "She had the impression that this stuff has been pretty well buried," another friend said. In McCarthy's view and that of many colleagues, two friends say, torture was not only wrong but also misguided, because it rarely produced useful results. [my emphasis]

Go read the entire article--it's an enlightening profile of McCarthy's career, including details of her earlier objections to some of the previous mistakes in the WOT.

The article, finally, only suggests a conclusion, it doesn't connect the dots. It suggests that McCarthy was fired because she was trying to make it clear that the CIA was lying about its activities related to ghost detainees, extraordinary renditions, and torture. But those dots are clear: McCarthy may have been blowing a whistle on ongoing illegal activities related to the WOT.

But let's put the dots about McCarthy together with Laura's dots.

• McCarthy may have been fired because she was blowing the whistle on, among other things, extraordinary renditions
• The underlying scandal of the Cunningham/Wilkes case may be the way the bribes funded covert activities, including (but not limited to) running plane companies used for extraordinary rendition

McCarthy gets fired, new dirt on Wilkes comes out, and we begin to learn that the real story is planes for extraordinary rendition. Yeah, I'd say those may be dots.

One more detail. I'm still mystified as to the Kremlinology on these events. Did the White House remove Goss so they could more easily cover up this covert stuff? Who's backing Hayden and why? Well, the McCarthy article provides one clue:

Officials at the CIA and the White House declined to say whether McCarthy's firing, which came 10 days before her planned retirement, was discussed between them in advance. But a CIA official said that when Goss himself was asked to resign two weeks later, Bush thanked Goss indirectly for the action when he said Goss had "instilled a sense of professionalism" at the agency.

Goss got shown the door. But he was escorted to the door, not kicked out of it. And as Cheney's (Negroponte's?) thugs were escorting Goss to the door, they were thanking him for showing McCarthy the door, two weeks earlier.

Lots of dots here, but I'm not sure what to make of them.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

And McCarthy won't report what she knows because why?

[emptywheel]

DemFrom

I'm not sure what you're asking, or suggesting. Are you saying she's being threatened, or that she really doesn't have anything on these guys, or that she's in some legal jeopardy?

[landreau]

EW--

Are you saying she's being threatened, or that she really doesn't have anything on these guys, or that she's in some legal jeopardy?

Might be all of the above. It's so difficult to know--McCarthy's a spook, after all, an old-school spook. I guess the final question is, "Are there things she knows about which she needs to get right with her god." This one cuts that deep.

I think you're on the right track.

[Mimikatz]

Back in the day, there was the "secret team" with Ricard Secord and his pals who were running contraband during the Vietnam War using the CIA airline, then running guns to the Contras and drugs to pay for it--at least the drugs part was the allegation. The involvement with the Contras was testified to by Secord himself in the Iran-Contra hearings. Dewey Claridge was one of the pals. I'm sure Dusty Foggo was a sort of Junior hanger-on from those days.

It seems clear that the intersection of shady funding sources for operations that wouldn't get funded in the daylight is a big part of this, and that has been pretty obvious once Wilkes' business dealings received some scrutiny.

These people are so profoundly undemocratic it isn't funny. "Destroying the village in order to save it" was the line form Vietnam, but they are destroying our democracy in order, by their lights, to save it--except for the ones who just want to make a buck and live the high life on the taxpayers' dime.

[Mimikatz]

McCarthy may also have been fored because as an IG she was getting too close to Foggo.

[emptywheel]

Mimikatz

Yes, the IG could have been getting too close. But read the article--it sounds like she was frustrated with the IG himself on the issues (the Helgerson in the last paragraph in the big McCarthy cite is the IG).

[Mike G]

Perhaps McCarthy was fired simply as an attempt to pre-emptively discredit her. They knew she was an internal whistleblower, wanted protection against what she could reveal once the Wilkes/Goss/Foggo/Cunningham scandal blows wide open.

"Don't listen to Mary McCarthy, she was fired for leaking. She's not trust-worthy."

Seems like vintage Cheney. Now, if only she'd been sent on a "Junket" by her "Husband" they'd be celebrating in the OVP.

[prostratedragon]

Just to throw another possible dot out there, 1) we know from the run-up to the Iraq war that this gang think nothing of redirecting appropriated funds to where they prefer having them go; 2) we have heard intermittently about large-scale failures in DOD financial management and self-monitoring (a recent report is described here.), and 3) we've been hearing lately about appropriated funds for the DOD that go unspent by Rumsfeld (who nevertheless complains regularly about inadequate funding).

The question is, what happens to those unspent funds? Do they go forthwith back into the general fund as unanticipated credits, or does it maybe take them a while to get back to the gf, if they ever do? I've heard of accounting adjustments and other such frimframery, but have no idea what the underlying (!) flow of funds would look like. Also I've got about 30 more seconds to spend on this, but fwiw I did run into a link from Brad Blog, who references a Joseph Cannon article that overlaps Laura Rozen a lot, but seems to advance the question of the Wilkes-to-Pentagon branch of the network a bit further. (Yipes! lightning!)

[tryggth]

Just a couple of minor things to add -

* Mary apparently thought the extradition of detainees from Iraq was a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

* Though the CIA may have been the operational arm, liability for such a violation runs up through the DoD and up to Rummy at the very least.

Finally, though I have only dim suspicions, it may be that not being able to make sense of the "players" motives may just mean we don't know who all the players are.

[orionATl]

i can't read minds so i am not sure what demFromCt was referring to but

it may have been the same paragraph that struck my wife while she was commenting to me about the article

she read to me from the paragraph about how neither mccarthy nor her lawyer would talk

and how her lawyer had been forbidden by the cia to discuss the case.

my wife, having been thru one of these up-is-down, black-is-white inquisitions at a large state university

was quick to note that both mccarthy and her attorney were gagged by the cia, not by the court.

hence the use of "friends of the accused" to get the message out.

you can bet those "friends" are spooks who are plenty mad at what happened. clearly this is bureaucratic guerrilla warfare.

how convenient for the cia to shut down any opposing viewpoint from an individual they have charged and fired.

apparently,

we run two judicial systems in the united states.

one for those who are not politically useful - the regular system where there is at least a modicum of fairness.

and one for politically useful individuals

where gagging, show trials, refusal to accept habeas corpus, and "renditions" for torture

are the legal techniques of choice.

in my view, the key point of the wapo article is that

the cia has, once again, as it has in dozens (at least) of other instances in our political history,

dropped the "black curtain of necessary secrecy"

over their own malfeasance, corruption, and incompetence.

james Jesus angleton, oh well.

aldrich ames, oh well.

inaccurate estimates of soviet threat, oh well.

illegal torture and renditions, oh well.

bay of pigs, oh well.

lack of accurate info on iraq or iran, oh well.

how long before this perennially non-performing government asset gets closed down or sold off - maybe to slobovians

or the penguins in antarctica.

[emptywheel]

tryggth

it may be that not being able to make sense of the "players" motives may just mean we don't know who all the players are.

Wise words, I think.

[ab initio]

I believe there is a pony around these lines of questioning. Laura Rozen's piece about the "fraternity" of S. Cal Young Repubs, Central America covert ops, leading lights in the Repub House Appropriations and Intelligence committees bears further investigation. The fact that the Dukestir being uncovered came from an intrepid reporter in San Diego doing some fact checking says a lot. How can we be certain that DoJ prosecutors will truly investigate the range and scope of the connections, corruption, crony profits and possibly illegal covert policies that were pursued? Will Gonzales throw a spanner in the works? Just like the wiretap investigation being abandoned due to lack of clearances - is there a particular reason to send Hayden in like plugging the holes. Is there concern that rendition and other activities would get unmasked? There is no doubt that there is way more than meets the eye. Dukestir/Wilkes/Foggo are just the tip of the iceberg!

[the exile]

What will happen is that the Democrats will win the house in 2006, stupidly try to grandstand with public hearings, will give everybody immunity or otherwise taint the waters so that the evildoers get off on legal technicalities, and we get Iran-Contra all over again. If those same Democratic idiots had not screwed up everything then, many of these jerks would have had to do serious jail time and we would not be seeing them in positions of power now. Incredible how long it has taken people to realize that this is Reagan Redux.

[Dan Robinson]

For me, the question: "did his wife send him on a junket?" pretty much puts "PAID" on Cheney. It indicates that he knew who Valerie Plame was and that it was possible for her to actually send her husband on a junket, i.e., he knew something about her position and role at the CIA and the reach of it.

Cheney outed a secret agent of the CIA and did it for spite.

[jwp]

the Foggo/Wilkes/Lowery/Cunningham/Charlie Wilson/Afghanistan story makes me nervous

Of course, people rarely do things for the first time, so it is traditional to look for patterns when trying to de-code intelligence blips

McCoy wrote in the Politics of Heroin that the French used the legal proceeds of an opium trade in SouthEast Asia to fund its intelligence operations there roughly 1900-1950. Ed Lansdale, leading psy-ops/dirty tricks/counter insurgency/prop up a regime tradition inventor of CIA was posted to Saigon in mid-1950s. Probably heard about it. Lucien Conein was posted there, same time. Conein appointed to lead DEA under Nixon.

A few years earlier, rump of Chnag Kai Schek forces near Burma, funded the fight against Mao with native resources -- Opium. The rump forces were supported by a CIA proprietary airline

Same years, 1950s, Paul Helliwell was doing I forget exactly what running guns in Central America and fancy money laundering stuff. I vaguely recall he may have known the anti-Castro or pro-Havana mob crowd

Anyway, Peter Goss was wet behind the ears in Miami, anti-Castro in about 1961. Was Negroponte there too?

1950s Honey Trap. Sukarno comes to US. Operative who later went to work for Hughes helped video Sukarno with hookers. Blackmail on politicians is useful. See also, J Edgar Hoover

Nixon/China/SALT. A lot of ex-CIA working for Nixon, and suddenly Nixon gets exposed. Team B seeks to discredit detente during the 1970s. Church Committee. Some people thrown out of CIA. Ed Wilson sets up an off-the-books network, shipping stuff, gets rich.

Late 70s, Wilson, Shockley, Secord,Army "narcolepsy" guy get caught (somehow) trying to skim off the shipping expenses of sending arms to Egypt in wake of Camp David accords. People are "freed up" from official CIA who turn up in the Iran Contra saga

BCCI stuff germinates in 1970s. Bert Lance, Billy Carter, First American Bank. What else? Don't know. But Woodward, I think, wrote that Casey came to CIA in 1981 hot-to-trot to set up "off the shelf" networks to supplement official CIA

Shackley plugs in with guy running oil to South Africa. Wierd tango with Israel/South Afirca/USA in those years

ok, long lead intro. This is the time, late 1970s, when someone recrits Foggo. Foggo brings in Wilkes by 1984 to run Congressmen to Central America, introduce them to hookers. Never mind the cocaine stuff, if any. We're concerned about policy.

Foggo was in logistics. My point is that much of the "off the shelf crowd" for 30 years had been in "logistics" in 1978 when Foggo was recruited. It was a known activity. Foggo wasn't inventing it.

Another point. Foggo was new when Wilkes came in. The narrative is that Foggo brought Wilkes in. But Foggo was too junior then. Foggo was not calling shots in 1984.

Who recruited Foggo in 1978? What faction? To what purpose? And reemember, CIA was not a monolith in 1970s. Indeed, Shackley and his crowd were tossed out in those years. By someone with power.

Interesting part of story to is Lowery? Lewis? Anyway, San Diego representative in 1980s had connection to Dixon, I think, S&L scam guy getting his start in early 1980s. Dixon, I think, had connections to real estate/banking crowd centered out of Denver, including people who were involved with Silverado, a bank that made a "sweet deal" with Neal Bush in late 1980s

the whole banking angle is very, very murky to me, but banks keep showing up in the story

Wilkes gets mixed up with Wolrd Finance Corp, in 1984, in connection with the Central America stuff

Wolrd Finace Corp was run by a Cuban, Caregna? sp wrong, who had an anti-Castro connection, and same Cuban did banking business in Texas in early 1980s with both Bush and Lloyd Bentson. Small world. I think the same guy, or a guy with one step of separation, did a real estate deal with Jeb in late 1980s that led to a little scandal

(the guy caught fooling with absentee ballots in Martin County in 2000 was ex-CIA, Miami 1960 vintage, who did real estate upon retirement in 1980s. small world)

Well, where wre we? early 80s. Wierd Israel/South Africa whatever times. Abramoff truns up with bit part in the Central America saga, and goes on to South Africa and other things.

Wilkes/Foggo crony loses seat in House after Dixon scandal in late 1980s. Cunningham takes over

Wilkes gets firmly established in "off the shelf" proprietaries in early to mid 1990s. Invites politicians to meet hookers, etc.

According to Laura Rozen, the big deal in the works just before the plug was pulled was a 300 million contract to run a new "Air America". Taxi smuggled torture victims, and other things, I guess. Again, a fairly familiar pattern, in general.

There are so many interesting questions about how this stuff unraveled recently

but how did it ravel? who was running these clowns in 1978 and 1984?

what networks were they part of? what network was the Wilkes/hooker scam part of?

Most importantly, what remains of those networks? quite a lot, I bet

sorry I cannot remember more of the names tonight. They are published. The books are lying around the house. If any particular aspect sparks anyone's curiousity, post a question, adn I'll try to find where I read it

meanhwhile, good luck to Laura and Ken

[tryggth]

"narcolepsy" guy was von Marbod. From pictures I've seen that whole quiting because of narcolepsy thing may make a comeback. :-)

Do you suppose the CIA has a drug.... nah.

[tryggth]

Iran Contra. Those were the days. Remember the goofy double-hush-hush secret accounts set up with CSF? Account names with initials which were the principal's initial's reversed. Wonder if that guy ever worked again...

Started watching the intelligence committees on CSPAN back then. My favorite inadvertent leak during those hearings (not Iran Contra) was the one about nuclear landmines in West Germany.

Enough of memory lane.

[triozyg]

Maybe what makes this so tantalizing is that there's a Deep Throat(s?) at the CIA and know one knows who it is -- but the admin is furiously trying to figure it out.

[free patriot]

about two dozen charges of "Crimes Against Humanity", that's what you could make of it (I got faith in you)

ReddHead could probably make as many charges of treason

and I never know what polly will come up with

but, just this once, i vote we let quicksilver go first (he's pretty good too)

come on internets, feed my jones

[jwp]

triozyg,

Laura still thinks that the San Diego reporter "stumbled onto" the Cunningham land transaction

I doubt it

[Sally]

The reporting on Dr. McCarthy's character makes me think she will not back away from anything unless she is in legal jeopardy. If she has had an up-close-and-personal look at how this Administration absolutely refuses to abide by the law, she knows she will be savaged in any kangaroo court it sets up to prosecute her. The secrecy mantra will keep facts hidden as it did when she was fired. Equal-oppportunity terrorists are in the White House and its environs.

[semiot]

McCarthy is sporting a nice square of general issue, "National Security Brand" duct tape. I her I was thinking in early 1994 that John Kerry was going to be George Bush's "worst nightmare" because he knew where all the bodies were buried under BCCI. Bones be thicker than water - or blood - I guess.

[semiot]

Let me try that again (in "Postview mode"):

McCarthy is sporting a nice square of general issue, "National Security Brand" duct tape. And here I was thinking in early 2004 that John Kerry was going to be George Bush's "worst nightmare" because he knew where all the bodies were buried under BCCI. Bones be thicker than water - or blood - I guess.

Thanks for the opportunity to "revise and extend" my remarks. That is all.

[squirm]

> The books are lying around the house. If any particular aspect sparks anyone's curiousity

jwp: I'll bite, I'd like to see the book cites, if you can gather them up. I've been meaning to read more on this. Thanks.

[squirm]

BTW, if anyone else wants to jump on the book recommendation bandwagon, be my guest.

[jwp]

Squirm,

You seem to be interested in a general bibliography. I am always happy to talk about books that I have read, so I am happy to pull something together, but it might take a little time. Hectic around here.

But, of course, you should know this is all just amateur interest; I am not an academic, and there are huge holes in what I have read. In general, I feel that you need to read on a subject from several angles (studying footnotes along the way) to get any perspective on any subject. And perspective is especially difficult on a topic where the point is to be secret.

A couple general points that might interest you, off the top of my head.

First, the literature almost loses perspective by defniniton, in my view. I view history as driven principally by broad social and economic factors. Secret macinations -- from mere office politics everywhere to colorful international espionage episodes -- are always around, but not the main drivers, in my view. But, of course, the literature is focused upon the specific maneuvers.

So, even if you can figure out more or less what has happened, it is always a struggle to keep the events in perspective.

Second, I think it is helpful to look at the saga of the last 50 years (very complicated, many sub-plots) in light of the seemingly less complicated story of the previous 50. In particular, it helps to understand, generally, that international bankers and their lawyers [e.g., Dulles and Bush families] had a special role in American intelligence matters at the start of the Cold War period. To a lesser extent, the mob did too. For this reason, people have often been especially suspicious of the CIA generally, and the Bush crowd in particular.

I am not sure that is justified, but it is helpful to understand the broad outlines of the early story.

In general, the history of those early days is driven by two big factors: the Czar, and German war reparations after WW I.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Czar had problems with anarchists, etc. and developed special secret police for infiltrating their world.

[jwp]

The Russian Communists came to know the Czar's techniques quite well, of course, and so came to power circa 1920 with some sophisticated techniques.

The basic technique was to plant double-agents into the society of your opponent. Czar infiltrated radicals. Russian radicals infiltrated the White Russian exile society of Paris in the 1920s.

Britain and Germany tried to use the Russian exile community for information, and as a result, in the 1930s and 1940s, the Russians had penetrated both the British and German intelligence organizations. Good book by a former CIA IG with a history hobby that I have to find. (annoying that I cannot recall the title off hand)

Other things happened too, of course, but this is one big theme.

The second theme I would suggest to you is the importance of german war reparations after the Treaty of Versailles. The big currency flows raised havoc with international currency markets, and were a big concern of the Bank of England in 1920s.

Basically, the idea was to recycle the German payments back to Germany. (Sort of like 'recycling petro-dollars to Latin America in wake of oil embargo in the 1970s -- another project that turned out badly.) The reparations were financed by German bods, I thnk (fuzzy here), that were bought through American and British investment banks. Anyway, whatever the mechanisms, a lot of thre reparation money went back to German in the form of American investments in German industry. [A guy named Higham, wrote an interesting book called Trading With The Enemy that is basically useless because it has no footnotes. But the writing is clear and suggestive.)

The practical consequence for our story is that there were a network of business relationships between American investment bankers and their lawyers and German counterparts during 1930s. This was not conspiracy. Just routine business.

At the same time, there was little in the way of organized international intelligence organization in US. (Domestic intelligence and some South American intelligence was handled by FBI in those days.)

So when WW II came along, it was somewhat natural to turn to investment banker crowd for info about Germany, and to make contacts. Alan Dulles went to Switzerland to attend to the task.

At the same time, there were some very conservative German industrialists who opposed Hitler and his war. The British and Americans were interested in making contact, to depose Hitler, and, perhaps, to make a separate peace without including the USSR. Stalin quickly found out because both the British and German intelligence were pentrated.

A guy named Admiral Canaris was a top German ittelligence guy who had sympathy with the anti-Hitler crowd, and protected them. Promoted the Swiss connection. Also promoted contacts through the Pope for the same purpose.

James Jesus Angelton, famous head of CIA counter-intelligence, was in Italy during WW II, and is implicated in the Pope's contacts with the Nazis.

At the end of the war, the Pope and CIA helped many conservative Germans and some Nazi war criminals escape to Latin America and elsewhere. These were the famous "rat lines."

The Jews found out. And Lofton and others suggest they used the info to blackmail many folks, including Angelton. Not sure.

Anyway, good book documenting CIA recruitment of Nazis at end of WW II is "Blowback" by Simpson, Maryland professor. His theory that these people had impact on American politics in 1950s and 1960s is thin -- not documented like the other stuff.

Another important book by Simpson is The Great Blond Beast, describing how Hitler bribed the German banks and industry to look the other way about his treatement of Jews by giving away Jewish property to them. This policy compromised many conservative German leaders that were in contact with Dulles/CIA.

After the war, we made peace with West German elite rather than bring them to justice. This had practical significance in 1950s intelligence because Wsst German intelligence was thoroughly penetrated by Russians, and so much disinformation was spread to US. Our nteworks in Eastern Europe were rolled up in the 1950s. And counter-intelligence guys like Angelton got ever more paranoid.

Anyway, in the 1950s, George H.W. Bush seems to have made CIA connections with Zapata Oil.

Quick oote on the mob. During Prohibition, various mobs infiltrated local governments, police and mayors. Business reasons. Also, in 1920s and 1930s, mob were drawn into union organizing disputes.

In WW II, American govt wanted to control espionage that could damage vital shipping industry for war. Lucky Luciano was in prison, so intelligence apprached him and asked that he use his influence with Longshoremen unions to control German sabotage efforts.

At end of War, mob contacts with politicians in Italy and France, circa 1948, seem to have come into play.

Not much more time for now. If you have specific questions about anything, I will try to find something. Otherwise, I will pull together my books when I get a chance, and post the book list later.

[squirm]

Thanks, jwp. I will check back with this thread from time to time.

I did some Googling, and I think the title you were looking for is The Great Game, by Frederick Hitz. Yes? I'll check it out.

[jwp]

Actually, the book I meant was The Unseen War In Europe by John Waller.

But I may have confused the two authors. Waller was CIA at some point, but maybe not IG.

"Spooks" by Jim Hougan is an entertaining intro to the more recent period.

A book with a terrible, tinfoil hat title, but well-sourced footnotes about wierd connections is "Mafia, CIA and George Bush" by Pete Brewton.

Similar themes with a mob emphasis is "Inside Job" [I have to look up the authors].

"Cocaine Politics," sourced largely to Iran Contra hearings and Kerry investigation, I think, by Peter Dale Scott is tedious but probably a good name bank.

Alfred McCoy, "The Politics of Heroin" was published in 1972, I think, but has good background.

more later