Trained to Kill

[W. Tracy Parnell]

The second part of my series on the Maurice Bishop story is a list of
questions for Antonio Veciana inspired by his new book Trained to Kill.
Veciana’s tale now includes suicide pills, disappearing ink, lie
detector tests, truth serum and other clichés that are notably absent
from earlier versions of the story.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/trained-to-kill.html

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Did he say that Phillips introduced himself as, "Bond....James Bond"?

I see David "the deep state killed JFK" Talbot wrote the foreword.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:41:34 PM UTC-4, W. Tracy Parnell wrote:

Here are some quotes that show why I think it is important that Veciana's
story be challenged:

Jefferson Morley (from his latest podcast)

Veciana is a man who spent at least a decade maybe more in the pay of the
CIA.

He definitely had this relationship with the CIA over the course of the
decade, he definitely had a relationship with David Phillips …

…the independent declassified CIA records that we have about
Veciana confirm his story, he’s not making this up,
there’s independent verification of it.

… his [Veciana’s] story never changed …

… I shared an extraordinary experience, for me almost certainly
once in a lifetime experience of being in the room with Mr. Veciana when
he participated in the Assassination Archive and Research Center’s
big conference … back in 2014.

David Talbot

Antonio Veciana’s Trained to Kill is one of the most important
historical documents to have emerged in the U.S. in the past decade.

Fernand R. Amandi

As was once said about him and the words in these pages confirm, Antonio
Veciana is one of history’s most important individuals.

[John McAdams]

On 19 Apr 2017 23:49:55 -0400, "W. Tracy Parnell"

<wtpa...@adelphia.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:41:34 PM UTC-4, W. Tracy Parnell wrote:
>> The second part of my series on the Maurice Bishop story is a list of
>> questions for Antonio Veciana inspired by his new book Trained to Kill.
>> Veciana’s tale now includes suicide pills, disappearing ink, lie
>> detector tests, truth serum and other clichés that are notably absent
>> from earlier versions of the story.
>>
>> http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/trained-to-kill.html
>
>Here are some quotes that show why I think it is important that Veciana's
>story be challenged:
>
>Jefferson Morley (from his latest podcast)
>
>Veciana is a man who spent at least a decade maybe more in the pay of the
>CIA.
>
>He definitely had this relationship with the CIA over the course of the
>decade, he definitely had a relationship with David Phillips …
>
>…the independent declassified CIA records that we have about
>Veciana confirm his story, he’s not making this up,
>there’s independent verification of it.
>
>… his [Veciana’s] story never changed …
>
>… I shared an extraordinary experience, for me almost certainly
>once in a lifetime experience of being in the room with Mr. Veciana when
>he participated in the Assassination Archive and Research Center’s
>big conference … back in 2014.
>

Morley is an interesting, and sad, case.

Back in the 1990s he was a pretty moderate conspiracy theorist, who
didn't make crazy claims (although he overstated the importance of
George Joannides). But as time has gone on, he has drifted further
and further into the fever swamps.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[W. Tracy Parnell]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:41:34 PM UTC-4, W. Tracy Parnell wrote:

I have released Fonzi's original notes from the Veciana interviews so
everyone can compare the story as it was originally told with that being
presented in Veciana's and Fonzi's books (scroll to bottom of page for
links). You will find some aspects of the story are essentially similar,
but some are very different.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/gaeton-fonzi-and-veciana-allegations.html

[Bill Clarke]

In article <c0c3f749-ce10-4c16...@googlegroups.com>,
stevemg...@yahoo.com says...

>
>On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:41:34 PM UTC-4, W. Tracy Parnell wrote:

>> The second part of my series on the Maurice Bishop story is a list of=20
>> questions for Antonio Veciana inspired by his new book Trained to Kill.=
>=20
>> Veciana=E2=80=99s tale now includes suicide pills, disappearing ink, lie=
>=20
>> detector tests, truth serum and other clich=C3=A9s that are notably absen=
>t=20

>> from earlier versions of the story.

>>=20

>> http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/trained-to-kill.html
>
>Did he say that Phillips introduced himself as, "Bond....James Bond"?
>
>I see David "the deep state killed JFK" Talbot wrote the foreword.
>

It used to crack me up over on JFK Facts when Jeff and the fool Peter Dale
Scott would get all fired up about this "Deep State". Right on brother!
JFK Facts seems to be dead as charity now days.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I have followed Morley pretty closely and I agree with you. Bugliosi said
Morley wasn't a conspiracy theorist but of course, he is now. I left a
comment on his blog asking what documents verify Veciana's story and it is
awaiting moderation. I would be very interested what documentation
supports his story, especially as it being presented in his book which
Morley recommends.

To my knowledge, there is a cryptonym which simply means that the CIA has
an identifier with which to refer to Veciana who they obviously had an
interest in as a member of Alpha 66. There is a CIA report revealing three
contacts with Veciana and that the agency showed no interest in him. There
was a one time $500 payout to Veciana by someone connected to the CIA. All
of this is a far cry from the 13 year employment that he is now claiming.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:54:00 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

Yes, he's fallen into the olde "the CIA knew more about Oswald than they
admitted therefore there was a conspiracy to kill JFK" type of thinking.
Whether he fell, was pushed or jumped on his own can be debated, I guess.

The Scott book is filled with interesting tidbits but he has to carry a
fact or claim to an absurd length. Morley's Scott didn't just run the MC
station; no, he brilliantly managed the most effective and thorough
station in the world with enormous resources that surveyed all of the
Western Hemisphere.

The CIA didn't just provide funds to the DRE, no, the DRE was effectively
controlled and completely run out of the CIA's main station in Miami that
had more agents than any operation in intelligence history.

This is tabloid journalism not history.

[Anthony Marsh]

I like that. So he's ok as a moderate conspiracy kook as long as he
doesn't go after the CIA. Once he starts going after the CIA he's
legally insane. It's obvious whom you are protecting.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/19/2017 11:49 PM, W. Tracy Parnell wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:41:34 PM UTC-4, W. Tracy Parnell wrote:
>> The second part of my series on the Maurice Bishop story is a list of
>> questions for Antonio Veciana inspired by his new book Trained to Kill.
>> Veciana’s tale now includes suicide pills, disappearing ink, lie
>> detector tests, truth serum and other clichés that are notably absent
>> from earlier versions of the story.
>>
>> http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/trained-to-kill.html
>
> Here are some quotes that show why I think it is important that Veciana's
> story be challenged:
>
> Jefferson Morley (from his latest podcast)
>
> Veciana is a man who spent at least a decade maybe more in the pay of the
> CIA.
>
> He definitely had this relationship with the CIA over the course of the
> decade, he definitely had a relationship with David Phillips …
>
> …the independent declassified CIA records that we have about
> Veciana confirm his story, he’s not making this up,
> there’s independent verification of it.
>

What about the records that the CIA refuses to release?
If we know all this from just what they have been willing to release,
doesn't that tell us what they are afraid to release?

[Robert Harris]

Good debunking. It's refreshing to see someone else around
here actually discussing facts and evidence.



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

It that anything like Trump and Bannon's Deep State?
Is that a Red state or a Blue state or a purple state?

The Deep State Is a Figment of Steve Bannon?s Imagination

Here?s the real truth about America?s national security bureaucrats.

By Loren DeJonge Schulman

March 09, 2017

Facebook
Twitter
Google +

Email
Comment
Print

Here?s a handy rule for assessing the credibility of what you?re reading
about national security in the Trump era: If somebody uses the term ?Deep
State,? you can be pretty sure they have no idea what they?re talking
about.

The phrase?s appeal is undeniable. The notion of a shadowy network pulling
the strings in Washington is an attractive one to an embattled White House
and its political opponents, shorthand-employing commentators and
conspiracy theorists alike. But uncritical use of this canard is lazy at
best and counterproductive at worst. The term, which political scientists
invented to refer to the networks of generals and spymasters that rule
many authoritarian states around the world, has migrated from leftist
critics of U.S. foreign policy to the alt-right advisers running the White
House. As a card-carrying former member of America?s vast national
security bureaucracy, I find it offensive. But I also find it offensive as
an analyst, because it?s a deeply misleading way to understand how the
U.S. government really works.

So what is?or isn?t?the Deep State?

Let?s start with standard insinuations of the phrase. There are more than
2 million civilian executive branch employees (not counting the U.S.
military or portions of the intelligence community, which does not fully
report employment numbers). At least half of that number work in an agency
related to national security, broadly defined. When combined with the
million-plus uniformed military and support system of contractors, this is
an unwieldy group. A mix of hard-working patriots, clock-punchers,
technocrats, veterans and scammers, these folks swear the same oath to
defend the Constitution.

Hollywood bears much of the blame in portraying this group as some
combination of Rambo, the All-Seeing Eye of Mordor and the cast of
Homeland?an omniscient guerrilla force unaccountable to any authority.
Reality is less made for the big screen; if, say, Zero Dark Thirty had
been true to life, it likely would have been a single shot of 100 hours of
lawyers? meetings. The national security bureaucracy does wield
awe-inspiring capabilities that could be disastrous if abused; months
sitting through the Obama administration?s surveillance policy review made
that clear. But while civil servants and military personnel do pledge to
defend the Constitution, it is not only the goodness of their hearts but a
complex web of legal, congressional, bureaucratic and political oversight
that guards against such risks. These checks are met with both grumbles
and keen awareness of how they set the U.S. rule of law apart from, say,
Russia. These systems are not foolproof, and could undoubtedly be
improved. The flaws of the administrative state?ranging from redundancy
and waste to self-interested bloat to inability to innovate to scandalous
incidents of corruption?have been well documented, its day-to-day
successes far less so. But find me an alternative to the national security
bureaucracy, or find me a functioning state without one.

To Steve Bannon and his colleagues in the White House, the Deep State is
an adversary to be destroyed. In recent remarks, the president?s chief
strategist called for the ?deconstruction of the administrative state.?
According to the Washington Post, he?s been whispering in President
Trump?s ear about the Deep State?s alleged campaign to ruin him. And,
truth be told, charged with leaking for its own purposes, thwarting
Trump?s policy priorities and ousting his appointees, this Deep State sure
looks quite guilty in the context of a chaotic first six weeks in office.

It?s far easier to blame shadowy bureaucrats than to take
responsibility for your own failures.?


But it?s far easier to blame shadowy bureaucrats than to take
responsibility for your own failures. The president?s executive order on
terrorism didn?t fail because the Deep State sabotaged it; it failed
because an insular White House did not seek or heed its advice. Leaks did
not bring down former national security adviser Michael Flynn; his
deception of Vice President Mike Pence did. Though it is impossible to
know, much of the exposure of White House infighting that so angers Trump
seems far more likely to be coming from his senior aides than from
low-level bureaucrats. Read More

Lede-Glasser-ByMScottMahaskey-sized.jpg

The Friday Cover
Trump Takes on The Blob

By Susan B. Glasser
17307_grunwald_obamacare_getty.jpg

Politics
Nobody Likes the Obamacare Replacement

By Michael Grunwald
Lede.jpg

Primary Source
How the CIA Forgot the Art of Spying

By Alex Finley

None of which is to say that Bannon?s view of the world is completely
baseless. Bureaucracies have institutional interests they are loath to let
go of, and are plagued by an inertia resistant to disruption. This is
common to all large organizations, not a flaw unique to the U.S. system of
government. But Trump has a tool to manage this dynamic that he has
inexplicably chosen not to wield: placement of around 4,000 political
appointees throughout the bureaucracy. Inserting his personal emissaries
throughout the Deep State would give him far more political control over
the civil servants he perceives to be rebelling, and at the same time give
his team better access to their expertise. But not a single one has been
confirmed below Cabinet level.

And here?s where Bannon?s blame game breaks down: Past presidents have
learned there are limits to what a pen and a phone (or a tweet) can
implement without calling on the resources of the administrative state.
This is not a threat but a fact. Their oath is to the Constitution, not
the president, but they are effectively there to make him look good. And
he has no alternative: There is no substitute state to defeat ISIS,
renegotiate trade deals, build walls, round up illegal immigrants or catch
terrorists if Trump works to dismantle the national security bureaucracy.
Making the Deep State an enemy will cripple his administration.

To many in the media, the Deep State has become a convenient label for any
quasi-official entity or view that is not enabling the Trump agenda. The
former president, Congress, the judiciary, the grass-roots community,
unions, the Blob, Black Lives Matter and the ?mainstream media? have all
been lumped with the national security bureaucracy to help explain the
unexplainable first weeks of this administration. ?Evidence? of such is
usually offered in the form of political alignment of the bureaucracy with
these groups, leaks of policy deliberations at inconvenient moments, or
the lack of success of the president?s desired policy outcomes.

Many assume that civil servants are liberal on various domestic political
issues. The reality is more complex, particularly in the national security
field, and as veterans make up an increasing proportion of the federal
workforce. Various polls proclaimed federal workers would resign if Trump
won the election in numbers ranging from 14 percent to nearly 30 percent.
Despite some very public anecdotes, the anticipated wave of federal
departures has not yet occurred.

Those employees who remain are frequently accused of ?thwarting? Trump?s
agenda. This is a serious accusation, but one that hasn?t manifested
evidence or shown any distinction from bureaucratic shirking problems that
have plagued every prior administration (Barack Obama?s travails with the
Pentagon come to mind). Government sausage-making is no silent coup.
Presidents do not rule by a Picard-like ?make it so,? and agencies have an
obligation to present policy advice based on the best facts available.
When the Department of Homeland Security?s intelligence unit failed to
find that the countries implicated in the president?s refugee executive
order present a terror threat, the analysts were just doing their jobs?not
defying the president. When government lawyers shared legal concerns about
the so-called travel ban, they were just offering their best advice. To
Trump, perhaps the end result feels the same: He is not getting all he
wants and the bureaucracy is telling him no. But this happens to all
presidents. The difference with Trump is that he can?t handle the truth.

But those leaks! Here?s the thing about leaks: They are anonymous, and no
one issues a friendly survey after a leak querying why the leaker did it.
So maybe there is a weekly bowling party where the Deep State gathers to
plan its agenda-thwarting leaks. Or maybe the Trump White House is doing
what the Trump campaign did with regularity: leaking. Or maybe the leaks
would dry up if any sort of formal policy process were launched at the
National Security Council and there were other means to air policy
concerns. Or maybe leaks are nothing new, having been roundly condemned
and unprecedentedly prosecuted in the prior administration, and we just
got around to calling it the Deep State. You and I have no idea, and that
is the point.

For some, discussions about the Deep State can be a form of wish-casting.
Would the military disobey unwise orders from Trump? Will Defense
Secretary James Mattis ?save? us from extreme actions in foreign policy?
More likely, each will stay in their lane and there will be no scenario in
which the system of checks and balances has broken down so badly that they
are compelled to initiate a major crisis with the president. For there are
checks and balances we should want to be empowered, rather than turn to
conspiracy: the judiciary, the media, a healthy political advocacy
culture, Congress, the policy and legal advice of institutions, the
statutory roles the military and intelligence communities, voters and
more. These roles, bound up in our Constitution, do not an activist Deep
State make, nor should anyone want them to. Read More

170307_coal_kentucky_ap_1160.jpg

Politics
The Obama Idea to Save Coal Country

By James Higdon
sized-Lede.jpg

Washington And The World
The Trade Deal We Just Threw Overboard

By Michael Grunwald

And then there?s the crowd of former civil servants and fellow travelers
like me who have vehemently denied the existence of an American Deep
State. These are the ravings of conspiracists, we rant, and quoting them
gives them credence. Look at Turkey, we implore, pointing to a Deep State
that involves shadowy criminals intertwined with state-within-a-state
institutions. That is not the American national security state, we say,
noting that federal employees are servants of the people, not their
enemies.

In this, I think we are generally right, but our message is wrong. True,
we do not have a corrupt administrative state enriching itself at taxpayer
expense, but it has problems. True, our national security enterprise is
not an evil empire, spying on and blackmailing Americans?but look at the
domestic surveillance concerns that came out of the Edward Snowden
revelations. True, our military and our diplomats don?t hide all their
activities from the American people?but they could be far more
transparent. The national security bureaucracy is far from perfect, and
pretending otherwise makes it far more difficult to institute the
necessary oversight and regulatory systems needed to prevent abuses and
mistakes.

So the next time you hear someone using the term Deep State, send them a
copy of this article. Ask them to stop using it. Tell them the term
betrays their ignorance, and obscures and misleads far more than it
illuminates. And if that doesn?t work, well, we Deep Staters will take
matters into our own hands.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Loren DeJonge Schulman is deputy director of studies and the Leon E.
Panetta senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think in general it's the old legal axiom of why would he cover-up
something if there's nothing important there.

> The Scott book is filled with interesting tidbits but he has to carry a
> fact or claim to an absurd length. Morley's Scott didn't just run the MC
> station; no, he brilliantly managed the most effective and thorough
> station in the world with enormous resources that surveyed all of the
> Western Hemisphere.
>
> The CIA didn't just provide funds to the DRE, no, the DRE was effectively
> controlled and completely run out of the CIA's main station in Miami that
> had more agents than any operation in intelligence history.
>

But in fact the DRE was often a loose cannon. So you can claim that the
DRE was involved, but that does not prove that the CIA ordered it.
Do you understand how a rogue operation works?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

RFK withheld information from the WC investigation: about the plots, about
the covert war on Cuba, about using the Mob to kill Castro - whether he
approved of it or not.

Nobody thinks he was involved in the murder of JFK.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:41:34 PM UTC-4, W. Tracy Parnell wrote:

A podcast by JFK Facts Editor Jefferson Morley got me thinking about the
uncritical treatment the conspiracy community has given the allegations of
former Alpha 66 member Antonio Veciana through the years. Several
statements made by Morley in that podcast are indicative of the problem.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/another-slobbering-love-affair.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, not that you can prove it.
RFK only heard about the CIA using the Mafia when he read about it in
the newspaper and he told them to stop it. Those plots started under
Eisenhower and Helms assumed that he did not need a new authorization.

> Nobody thinks he was involved in the murder of JFK.
>

Some people think that he blamed himself, that it was a boomerang
effect. That JFK tried to kill Castro, so Castro killed JFK.